The Ides of March- George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Hoffman, Giamatti, Tomei... What could possibly go wrong? (spoiler alert)

The Ides of March is a film based on the play by Beau Willimon called Farragut North written in 2008 that was loosely based on the 2004 Democratic Primary campaign of Howard Dean.  The adapted screenplay was written and directed by George Clooney who also stars as Mike Morris, a presidential primary candidate for the Democrats. Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Meyers, a media consultant for Morris who works for Paul Zara (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). The events in the film take place in the days preceding the Ohio democratic primary election.  A scandal ensues when a twenty year old intern (Evan Rachel Wood)  who happens to be the daughter of the head of the Democratic National Committee gets pregnant with the Governor’s child and need’s an abortion. Meyer’s helps her out and is privy to the information. After meeting with the opposing candidate’s campaign man (Paul Giamatti)  and being fired off the campaign for it, Meyer’s finds himself in a situation where his information could benefit him. Then, the intern winds up dead and Meyer’s blackmails his way to the head of the campaign. Marisa Tomei also contributes to the all-star cast as Ida Horowitz, a witty journalist who is always hitting up the media men for scoop. She reinforces the fact that there is no such thing as a friend in politics, only reciprocity. 

The title of this film alludes to the presidential primary of Ohio that was to take place on the 15th of March. The word Ides comes from the latin work “Idus”, which means “half-way”.  It is known in history as the day that Julius Caesar was killed in 44 B.C. This event was dramatized in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar when the soothsayer tells Caesar, “Beware the Ides of March” on the way to his death.  With the allusion in the title of the film to the death of a king, one could assume that there will be a death of something, if not a character.  In the film the king is not killed, but dreams die and so does an intern.  We see a good and honest man who is running for president (at least in the eyes of Meyers) transition into a womanizing and dishonest politician. 

The Ohio primary is considered extremely important to any primary candidate. However, it seems a little out of context for being a key state in the film considering that it is no longer imperative to gaining candidacy.  As recently as 2008 this can be disproven. Time and again, the notion that “as Ohio goes, so goes the nation” has been ruled out as political mythology. Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy both lost the Ohio primary in their bid for democratic candidate and so did Barrack Obama.  It is mentioned in the film that only three democrats have been elected to the presidency, but it seems that three of them also all lost Ohio.  This is why the Ohio win really isn’t a big deal in the film. Unless they are using it as context for where the back room deals are made and delegates are traded like baseball cards for Cabinet appointments and spots on the ticket. Considering Hillary’s Ohio win, it may have just been her bargaining chip for her Secretary of State position (not that she didn’t deserve it). Maybe paranoia sets in for candidates in Ohio and they begin to panic, at least it does in Ides.  Another factor in Ohio was mentioned in Ides. It is an open primary. Republican voters can get out and vote for the least likely candidate that they are confident their guy can defeat.  Too bad America loves an underdog story.  For the democrats, the saying needs to be updated to “As Ohio goes, NO goes the nation”. 

In great thanks to Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti, perhaps two of the greatest character actors working in films today, the business of the campaign comes off as genuine. Even when the plot doesn’t.  These are two smart guys who almost always play smart characters. In the film, they appear that they have been there and done that. They know what to say, what to do, and how to respond to any situation.  Zara (Hoffman) even gives a nice monologue on loyalty while firing Meyers.  Duffy (Giamatti) gives his own while rejecting Meyers and both write him off with professional ease. Myers is young at 30, but it is  also stated in the movie that he is one of the greatest media minds in the world and politics is his life.  One could assume that when the opponents guy (Duffy) calls to meet with you days before the primary it’s not to discuss last night’s game. He is up to something. The utter lack of intelligence by some of the characters is unnerving.  I feel that while it was any political movie fan’s dream to see Giamatti and Hoffman go head to head as campaign managers while George Clooney is the candidate it fell flat from the storyline. They deserved better material. 

The token pretty girl hussy of an intern is Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood). She is a 19 or 20 year old (the film waffles on that fact) and finds herself pregnant. It is difficult for me to believe that a seemingly smart girl who understands the magnitude of her situation would seduce a Meyers. Maybe it’s my own naiveté, but it did not seem likely. Most girls would have gotten off the campaign or at least refrained from sex with other guys. If she were to try and pass the baby off as Meyers, he could have quickly debunked that notion considering that the New York primary is traditionally a month earlier than the Ohio.  Any Modern sonograph gives conception dates down to a mere days. 

The camera angles, lights, and sound in the film all get it right. From the opening scene we see a close up of Meyers on the podium with confidence and hope in his eyes while Zara and Duffy grin at each other backstage.  The opening music is identical to the military drums we heard in The Candidate. Clooney uses very effective and literal  shots through window blinds, shadows, and actors clad in overcoats in scenes where back-room meetings occur. During a shaky plane ride, we are handed a clear metaphor for the direction of the campaign. Zara is made to look pathetic and frumpy set against the regal colonial and stately style of the meeting place with Senator Thompson (Jeffrey Wright) where he is made a fool of.  Just before he is fired, Zara is getting a haircut in a barbershop. It goes without saying that Clooney uses Juxtaposition when needed. 

There are several allusions to past political films in Ides. Much like the character in All the King’s Men, Duffy is the guy that facilitates the drama throughout the entire movie. He is a complex character in each film who  did whatever it took to disable his opponent. If the secret meeting with Duffy and Meyers  had never occurred in Ides, the subsequent events would have never taken place. Surely a tribute to Kings, it was prudent to name this character Duffy.  One cannot ignore the striking resemblance that Giamatti bears to Peter Boyle as Marvin Lucas in The Candidate as well as the politics of Redford and Clooney in real life, as well as their characters.  The theme of this film, Kings, and Candidate are the same. power is seductive and eventually corrupts even the good guys , is transitive.  “You have to crack a few eggs to make an Omelette” as Jack Burden said. I think after his experience with the Morris campaign, Meyers would say the same. Unlike Meyers, Burden was not quite as naive .

If The Ides of March was made fifty or sixty years ago it may have been quite ground-breaking. Unfortunately, the politician and intern sex scandal has become a tired cliche. When the intern dies it adds an element of darkness, but not quite enough to rouse the tired sex scandal.  The naiveté of the supposedly seasoned campaign guys is frustrating and comes across as ingenuous. There was an obnoxious element of pollyanna about the reactions of these self proclaimed thick skinned guys to a mere sex. One could only assume that the movie was set in an alternative universe where the likes of Bill Clinton, John Edwards,  Anthony Wiener, Mark Sanford, etc. never existed. In almost every political movie I have seen whether it be the good guy or bad guy, a mistress or hints of a mistress is involved and is merely a byproduct of the overall corruption of the candidate (The Candidate, All the King’s Men).  This film has been made, the story has been told, and the reality has been lived. I think we are all growing weary of the “good guy with pretty hair get caught with his pants down” story.  At a time when social issues are on the back burner, why Clooney wouldn’t capitalize on the outrage of millions of Americans who are hurting from the financial crisis completely stumps me. Abortion? Religion? Adultery? We have bigger fish to fry these days. The funding of campaigns by the likes of the Koch brothers could be much more provocative and resonate in most Americans more than the intern sex plot.  Also, trying to create a scandal from one media guy meeting with the other guys media guys is pretty far-reaching. Clearly, the wealthy guys who made this movie may be slightly out of touch with the movies that desperately need to be made today. With a powerful cast like this, a lot of information could be given to the public and insight a lot of critical thinking from the audience. Even with it’s sudden, black-screen ending, we are left with no room for speculation and instead a mere stereotype of politicians today. The only profound message we gain is from our own disillusionment of our values when it comes to politicians and their sexual indiscretions. 

Paths of Glory

Spoiler Alerts* (you probably won't watch this film anyway)  Paths of Glory is an anti-war film made in 1957 and set during the first World War. It was written and directed by Stanley Kubrick who based the film off of the novel of the same name by Humphrey Cobb. Kirk Douglas plays Colonel Dax, a French commanding officer who sees the fallacy of hypocrisy in War. This film gives us a dramatization of French army politics in 1916 during World War I,  which were a brutal battleground all of their own through Kubrick’s grim but honest lens.  With progressive undertones, Kubrick peruses the issues of post-traumatic stress disorder, friendly fire, and due process. This film shows us the profane side of war, one that was not as popular in that day in age and today remains clandestine. Dax’s point of view is shown through the eyes of logic. However, General Paul Mireau,  played by George Macready, clearly had his own agenda, refused all logic, and was pursuing his political promotions through the killing of innocent and brave soldiers. Using the brave people of the military for propagation of political power is not an old story, but one that could be retold very easily on the current wars that our men and women are fighting as well as the war on drugs. 

 

Mireau gives the orders for the men of the 701st Regiment to take the anthill, a German occupied position that is well defended, and impregnable according to Dax. He informs Dax that most of his men will die and that 5% will likely die of friendly fire. Dax reluctantly agrees, not wanting to be separated from his own men. Mireau knows that this is an impossible feat, but wants to give it  try in order to get his promotion of another star. The next day when the men of the 701st are sent out, the B company refuses to go out into the carnage of men dropping like flies, knowing that it is a suicide mission. Mireau orders them (his own men) to be fired upon but the Battery Commander, Captain Rousseau (John Stein) refuses to comply with Mireau's order and keeps his men held back. Dax returns to the trench to find them there and his attempts to rally them falls on deaf ears as a body knocks him off the ladder. The consequence is that the men of the regiment who retreated or stayied in the trenches are court marshaled for cowardice by General Mireau and General George Broulard (who is played by Adolphe Menjou). 

The logic that Dax follows in response to the court marshal is important to the film because it reveals the fallacy of the war itself as well as the politics that fuels it in the first place.  In the beginning of the film we learn that Dax is one of France’s top criminal defense attorneys.  When Dax points out that they should just execute himself instead of the men of company B, we can assume that he in fact is implying that if anyone should face a firing squad, it should be the scumbag General Mireau since he is the leader of the entire regiment. 

Hypocrisy is pointed out in the context of friendly fire as well. One of the ugliest aspects of war, this subject is still taboo today and has been under a lot of scrutiny with the case of Pat Tillman. Lt. Roget, played by Wayne Morris is in charge of a night patrol. He takes along two men. One of these men is  killed when a drunken Roget impetuously throws a grenade out into the dark. He fails to report his mistake and lies about the death of the soldier. Dax seems suspicious of Roget, but doesn’t peruse it, probably because he was more worried about invading the anthill. This shows us that friendly fire deaths went greatly under reported and probably still do today. 

The film also sheds early light on the issue of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  We see a man who is clearly not in his right mind referred to as a baby and subsequently punched by General Mireau as he does a very political meet and greet with the men of the 701st in the trench. Mireau claims that there is no such thing as ‘shell shock”. This is a metaphor for the military failing to address the mental health issues of the men returning from battle. With little advancement or recognition, as well as treatment in subsequent wars, this is yet another form of casualty that Kubrick points out. 

Kubrick’ s signiature intense style is shown in the scene where Dax is walking through and past the men of the 701st Regiment as they are standing against the sides for cover against the barrage.  This scene foreshadows his 1975 film The Shining which has quite memorable hallway scenes. We see the camera angle change from Dax’s point of view, looking directly into the eyes of the men, to the men’s point of view looking directly into Dax’s eyes.  The shells are heard roaring overhead and many fall very closely, some falling onto Dax and his men. Blowing a whistle between his teeth and with a pistol in his hand, Dax climbs a ladder as a soldier is heard counting down.  During the battle, no music is played . Only the orchestra of booms, bangs, shells clanking and whistles blowing. In scenes where intensity needs to be heightened, Kubrick uses a drum that gives a sense of urgency to a mere meeting of men. He also uses large open and fancy spaces as an environment where diabolical plots are formed.  Douglas’s voice during the trial sounds echo and hallow, like he is speaking into a vacuum. Which we find that he actually is because no one is listening to him. Another aspect of the cinematography is the casting itself.  Kubrick uses the appearances of the actors to generate assumptions on their character. The portly General Broulard is obviously not a soldier and didn’t get to his station in life from the bravery of coming out of the trenches. With the scar on the face of Mireau, we can assume hat he must of been in battle at one time, but has since been corrupted by the hunger for political power. Kubrick’s scenes are tight and acute with the use of the first person point of view. With a voyeuristic and Hitchcock-esque element, he draws the audience into the scene by showing us the same information as the character involved. Thus becoming a shared experience, tying the audience and character closer together. 

The men accused of being cowards are given a sham of a trial with Dax being the defense attorney, the audience feels the 3 accused may stand a fair chance of exoneration. But, the trial is 3 hours away and no evidence is allowed to be admitted or witnesses called. This shows a clear lack of due process. The Guantanomo Bay detainess could probably relate. Because it is in a time of war, it is justified that they not be given a fair trial. The men are ordered to be executed, but not before a dramatic scene with Private Arnaud (Joe Turkel).

Wen a priest comes to deliver the news to the three accused that they will be executed. Private Arnaud becomes belligerent. He refuses to pray or confess because he would feel like a hypocrite for not being religious prior to learning that he would die. After punching the priest, he is knocked into a wall and is fatally wounded. 

Of the three men who were shot as cowards none were as big of a coward as General Mireau. Instead of coming to terms with is own mistake, sacrificing innocent lives of soldiers to progress his career, he chooses to act on his shame induced narcissism. Kubrick’s theme is unrelenting and he sacrifices the lives of the men in order to drive home his themes as only he can. Kubrick doesn’t give much gratification for karmic wrong-doings of the Generals, but in the case of Roget, he makes him pay. Dax ordered Roget to be the executioner, obviously aware of his past indiscretion of killing his peer, as well as his decision to choose the three men who were going to be murdered. Dax felt that he owed it to Roget to teach him a lesson. He would never forgive himself for shooting three innocent men in the head that he had condemned, unlike the man he carelessly blew up with a grenade and then wrote off on a whim. 

Dax quotes Samuel Johnson on patriotism saying that it is “the last refuge of the scoundrel". With the rhetoric of today’s nationalist “patriots” we see this quote play out in draconian immigration laws as well as a justification for massive military spending and the patriot act itself. Not to mention two wars which, if opposed, you may very likely be called unpatriotic. The final scene mocks the same sense of patriotism. The captured girl singing to all the drunken soldiers is weeping. Usually, a song at the end of a film would illicit warm fuzzy closure but Paths of Glory is absent of nostalgia. Instead, we feel remorse and disgust and reflection. This scene hits the heart the film’s themes and ties it all together in an unforgettable way. 

All the King's Men (1949)

All the Kings’s Men is a film made in 1949 based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name by Robert Penn Warren. The film stars Broderick Crawford in his Academy Award winning performance of Willie Stark, the fictionalized version of former Louisiana Governor Huey Long.  Governor Long is remembered as one of the most captivating and legendary politicians of all time while the character of Willie Stark is one of the most memorable anti-heros in the history of film.  John Ireland, nominated for Best Supporting Actor, plays Jack Burden, a newspaper reporter who ends up working for Stark after quitting his job.  The film surrounds the campaign and election of Stark who is a man of the people with a loud and thunderous message. Throughout the film, Stark goes from being a good ole’ boy to a back-room dealmaking shark. Although he campaigns on the soapbox of doing good for the oppressed and poverty stricken people of his state, he becomes his own worst enemy. After promising more than he could deliver during the campaign, Stark becomes ensconced with the wealthy oil and energy companies in which he promised to fight.  His fall from grace is not alone.  Along the way he loses his supportive wife, his son loses his ability to walk, and the respect of the people that brought him to the top dwindles. 

The film opens with Stark campaigning for city treasurer in Konoma County.  Stark is introduced as an honest man with a heart of gold.  This idea is reinforced when Stark exposes the city for misusing funds to build a school. His campaign is cut short by the county commissioners, the very men who made the back-room deal with the contractors perhaps foreshadowing Stark’s later adoption of such tactics.  Weeks later, the school’s fire escape gives out and several children are killed with more injured. Stark comes out on the other side knowing that he could have made a difference if anyone would have listened.  After getting his law degree from the help of his sweet schoolteacher wife he becomes an attorney who helps the people of his community. This resembles the Bill McKay character from The Candidate and President Obama’s early days as a community organizer. He was amongst the people, learning what was at the heart of their issues. He was a fellow “hick” after all.  This experience came in handy when engaging the working class and getting them to rally around him in what is now known as a true grassroots campaign. John McCain and Sarah Palins’s maverick and rogue routine do not compare to that of Stark’s initial and pure rejection of the machine. The people felt they had an leader who was in-touch and represented the hope and change they desperately needed while not condescending them or trying to pull the wool over their eyes. In Willie’s case, he accomplished this all the while.  This film highlights the hypocrisy in politics which existed back then, as it does now. Sadly, it takes money to run a campaign and to fund projects.  Stark would stop at nothing to fulfill the big promises he made to his people even if that meant losing his integrity. The way Jack Burden put it, “You can't make an omelet without cracking eggs”.  Unfortunately, the eggs he cracked were his own. This film broke down barriers between the public and the machine. Once again, we get a back-room view of what goes into making political deals. Sometimes, even if the programs or laws appear to be good for the public, there are still fat-cats somewhere reaping the benefits.  This film begs the question: Are we willing to except this behavior in the United States?

Jack Burden had the luck to stumble upon Stark during his treasurer campaign and was instantly captivated by his honesty and seemingly pure intentions. Jack saw something in Stark that contradicted his own upbringing of wealth and privilege in an affluent community called Burden’s Landing. His mother is a lush who thinks only of her next husband or cocktail.  The other members of the community seem cavalier and pompous as well. They turn a blind eye on the poverty stricken majority while blaming the victim.  Burden likely grew up frustrated, feeling like there was another side to the story and he found Stark as someone that agreed.  His own struggle in reconciling who he wants to be with what his family expects of him is highlighted.  We also see  well as his relationship with Ann Stanton (Joanne Dru), a childhood friend and Burden’s girlfriend who eventually falls victim to Stark’s charm.  Stark not only makes a mess of his life, but the lives of all who trust him including Burden. 

It goes without saying that All the King’s Men defined the campaign and political movie genre. For the time, it was groundbreaking. Perhaps even more so was the character of Sadie Burke. Mercedes McCambridge won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance as this fast talking and smart force of nature.  She may have defined the archetype within the genre. The perfect mixture of brains and gumption, Sadie was a pioneer for the times.  Women had only gotten the vote ten or so years before the film was set.  Sadie would have no doubt been on the front line’s of suffrage. Although she seems tough, she too is beguiled by Stark and falls in love with him. Her strength and hard exterior is juxtaposed by her own insecurities about her looks. Women more beautiful than her surround Stark constantly. This gives Sadie a vulnerability and McCambridge nails it. Sadie was the personification of the smart and educated middle class who more than likely voted for and trusted Stark ending up along the bumpy ride to the bottom. 

Although Stark leaves a wake of heartbreak and corruption in his path his disciples stick with him until the end.  He may have built highways, hospitals, and colleges but how many lives were ruined or even lost along the way? Some would argue that in war casualties are the price to pay for victory.  However, Stark was not that calculating. His moves were not carefully planned and executed. If he saw an opportunity to exploit someone to push his agenda, he jumped on it without second thought. 

Greed is like an itch that Stark tries to scratch, but continues to spread until it takes over his entire existence. Stark experiences a loss of control when greed and power take over. Focus is lost and his soul blackens. Stark makes the transition from democrat to despot which causes one to imagine that socialism may have been under scrutiny in this film.   Although it doesn’t appear to be idealogical, we are shown good and evil on both sides. Adam Stanton is the good doctor from Burden’s landing who choses not to let his affluence define him. The film teaches us that there are always shades of gray in politics and policy making. There are poor guys who are bad and there are rich guys who are good.  No one is safe from the entrancing luster of power and greed. 

A strong message sent by All the King’s Men was on the balance of democracy. Currently in the United States the wealth and income gap is growing larger. The balance has been thrown off and the middle and lower class continue to struggle. This political landscape of the state in the film is not dissimilar from that of Arkansas especially in the Mississippi delta and Arkansas river valley.  Jobs, infrastructure, education, and healthcare are the priorities among the working class people of each area. These issues were at the core of the ideals in the film. Not gay marriage, school prayer, or abortion issues which are often talking points within the media. When Governor Beebe campaigned he had a television advertisement which said he was born in a tar-paper shack. The hick-to-hick campaign of Stark has become a cliche, but it has not fallen on deaf ears. There is something to be said of his tactics. At the Corning, Arkansas (population 3,254)  4th of July Picnic you can hear speeches from Senate, Gubernatorial, Congressional, as well as local campaigns. The ability of a politician to win a campaign is tested under these settings. The desperate and poverty stricken people, as well as the affluent farmers of the region have a lot at stake when it comes to who is elected and they need to know that the representative they elect is going to offer them something in return for their vote. This is where Stark succeeded. He promised the people everything they needed and asked only for their vote in return while collected the souls of the dirty rich.  Much to the surprise of Stark, there is a balance to ensure the progress in the United States. Polarity works to keep the world spinning much like in the world of government and politics.  

The Last Hurrah

The Last Hurrah is a film made in 1958 directed by John Ford.  The film’s awards include an NBR Best Director for Ford and an NBR Best Actor for Spencer Tracey.  The screenplay was based on the novel of the same name by Edwin O’Connor .  The main character of Frank Skeffington (Spencer Tracey) was rumored to be loosely based on the former mayor of Boston, James Michael Curley. The film follows Skeffington as he campaigns for his last time as the mayor of a large east coast U.S city that was unnamed.  Throughout the film we see the infancy of television and image-centered campaigns as well as the ethnic relations of the immigrant workers and old-money and the effect that this has on the outcome election. The cliche of good and evil is set against the moral continuum of right and wrong as Skeffington navigates through the harsh climate of wealthy, controlling elite who wish to bring him down and end his do-gooder policy making once and for all. 

Skeffington is a great man, but flawed.  It is apparent that he is corrupt as moral lines are blurred throughout the film. When one may assume that he is doing something kind, there is an ulterior motive at play.  In the funeral scene we understand that on one hand, he is paying for the funeral of man who may have not been able to afford it. Without the draw of the mayor, not many people would have shown up.Then, the mayor, often called governor his constituents, throws a campaign rally during the wake and uses the eulogy for a stump speech. At the end of the scene, we see Skeffington short-changing the funeral director to save himself money.  He is willing to exploit the dead and short the small business owner.  He often breaks the rules to get what he wants. It is reminiscent of Jack Burden’s adage, “In order to make an omelet you have to crack a few eggs”.

Racial and class conflict’s are common occurrences throughout The Last Hurrah.  The history of  the Irish-American immigrant is one that is complex and is addressed in the film.  Skeffington, a man who raised himself out of the city slums is a hard worker is able to empathize with the common men and women. He takes on the oppressive, old-money Irish elite whose families were the wealthy settlers from the Mayflower in the Cotton Mather room of a fancy city club. The reference to Mather, being a puritan minister who is known for the Salem witch trials, alludes to the oppressive nature of the bankers and other wealthy members. He goes to visit them to make it known that he will stop at nothing to get his loan approved for  low income housing project. In a move of humiliation and blackmail, Skeffington makes the banker’s son fire chief (this being a position that he would surely fail at).  This is one of the many examples of  the clearly manipulative mode of operation that the mayor has adopted. It had gotten him far in the past, but a new agenda was at play that he was not prepared to battle. 

Machine politics is also one of the film’s main themes. We learn how Skeffington and his crew run things and can clearly see how he was easily elected for multiple terms. They operate like an assembly line, each member putting their own piece of the machine together. However, tthere is a clear paradigm shift going on for campaigns.  The ever loyal character of Ditto, played by Edward Brophy, is a voice of the people and a great source of comic relief. He has a distinguished manner of speaking that foreshadows Yoda from Star Wars (minus the wisdom). He gives his own assessment of Skeffington’s opponent, Kevin McKlusky and we see the birth of the “image” that we know so well in politics today.  He gave a laundry list of military, church, and family achievements and qualifications. His eyes lit up when he was speaking of him. He is clearly like-able on paper. This may have not been a factor in Skeffington’s previous elections when what mattered most was who you owed and who owed you, along with what kinds of promises you could make to the people. After all, Skeffington’s son was not much to speak of and his wife was dead.  Ditto didn’t even need to mention McKlusy’s policies to make the point that McKlusky was a serious threat to the final campaign of mayor Skeffington.  The mayor overcomes a lot because of his wit and perceived greatness.  He has more charm that a dozen leprechauns. He may be a charming, baby kissing man of the people but against a young, military, family man who has the support of the local newspaper and wealthy elite, Skeffington looks like the clear loser. 

Jeffrey Hunter plays Adam Caufield, the nephew of Frank Skeffington.  Caufield is a sport’s columnist at the city’s newspaper.  Skeffington recruits him to work on his campaign by telling him that the most watched spectator sport in the world is politics. As a character, Caufield is another voice of the people. He is exposed to the dirty underworld of the campaign, but maintains his position as  a spectator. It is not know what his contribution to the campaign is within the film, but his access to the relationship between the newspaper editor (John Carradine) and his query into Skeffington’s family life and history play an important role in perpetuating the story lines of the film. 

The basis of the film being about former Boston mayor James Michael Curley was always denied by the author of the novel, Edwin O’Connor. However, the similarities are a bit uncanny. The story tells of an aging Skeffington’s last run and defeat. This was also the case for Curley who was defeated in his last run for mayor at age 74.  Curley also shared a deep connection to his dead wife like Skeffington, as well as a son who didn’t amount to much. Ditto is also a character taken out of Curley’s pages in history. Curley had a member of his crew called Up-Up who shared the same ubiquitous loyalty as Ditto.  He got his name from entering a room saying ‘up, up, the governor is coming, stand up!”.  The city’s name is never revealed, but one can only assume that Boston is the location because of the Irish population references. O’Connor lived in Boston at one time which of course was home to Curley.  

Overall, this film was well ahead of it’s time and had excellent foresight to where politics were headed at the time. Planned Parenthood was mentioned which is a topic that is still hot. Many of these talking points were emerging at the time. The New Deal created much speculation and political action on behalf of the wealthy elite. It also created opportunities for corruption on behalf of local and state politicians who could use the new contracts and funds to perpetuate their own career and accruing personal favors while doing what the public assumed was for the greater good.  This film seems to be an excellent dramatization of the times, then and now. 

The Candidate

The Candidate is a film directed by Michael Ritchie starring Robert Redford and Peter Boyle.  Redford is also credited as a producer of the film. Jeremy Larner, a former speechwriter for Eugene  McCarthy,  wrote the screenplay and won an Academy Award for the film. The Candidate takes a cynical and seemingly accurate look behind the scenes of a typical mechanistic political campaign.  When Marvin Lucas (Boyle) is given the job of finding a democratic California senatorial candidate he stumbles upon Bill McKay (Redford).  McKay is a very handsome man with a big-heart and rough-edges.  He is a public interest lawyer and the son of a former Governor.  He has a Kennedy-esque look with an honest and logical opinion about almost everything.  His looks and sexual magnetism is described by his wife as his “power”.  During the course of the film we see his image form like raw clay into a beautiful vase. The men behind the scenes are the artists and he is merely the subject. His caring and empathy become a cliché which foreshadows Clinton’s “I feel your pain” bit.  The film relays to the viewer the message  that it’s not really about the ideals of the individual candidate.  You are shown what you want to see wrapped up in a pretty package with a bow on top. If the people like it they vote for it, regardless of their ideology.   
McKay’s antagonist could be viewed as his opposition in the senatorial race. Don Porter plays Crocker Jarmon who is an older and more experienced candidate who seems to have the advantage.  He manages to get the best of McKay at their first few meetings.  However, it seems that the true antagonist is the political machine itself.  It is seductive, manipulative, and hypnotic.  Lucas can be seen as the personification of the machine, but it seems to go beyond even him.  He is just a servant of the machine.   The goal of the machine is to turn out a candidate that is sellable and marketable.  The operators of the machine are portrayed as men who never revealed their ideals, but spoke of the McKay message objectively.  After the debate, we see media man Howard Klein (Allen Garfield) become angry over McKay speaking his own mind.  Klein is constantly telling him to dumb down his message so that people will respond positively to it.  In response to his new canned and polished rhetoric, a news reporter accuses the machinists as “selling themselves like an underarm deodorant”.  He points out the fallacy that the men working hard to get McKay elected are not in it to change the world. They are not a group of idealists and activists running the campaign like many American’s may believe.  They are ad men.  Well paid ad men at that.  Many of the scenes when the media meetings take place are not unlike a scene from the television show Mad Men (AMC 2007). It involves a group of power and money hungry men who are paid to come up with the best way to get the people to like a product and invest in it.  McKay is branded with a silly slogan, “For a better way, Bill McKay”.  The job of the machine is to brand the candidate well, or at least better than the other guy. The loss of identity experienced by McKay unravels as the machine kicks in.  We watch McKay unravel during a rough day on the campaign trail. He feels defeated along with being thirsty, hungry, and tired.  After getting more upsetting news, he gets into a fight with a soda machine as he struggled to get a drink.  A young man enters and asks if anyone wants a coke and McKay responds “NO!”.  This is clearly a metaphor for McKay forgetting what he is fighting for in the first place.  The more the machine does its job right, the less McKay recognizes himself.  In the process he is left without integrity or identity.    
Although the film was made nearly forty years ago, it is extremely relevant today.  It is like watching the infancy of the era of sound-bite and image ran machine politics.  The film was made when a movie star was the governor of California, which is not at all different from where we are today.   There is a thin line separating McKay from the likes of Ronal Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The star of the show always wins in political theatre. 
An obviously gifted performer is Sarah Palin.  Palin was an excellent character and garnered much attention and a lot of votes for the McCain ticket.  This is credited more to her folksy accent and big hair than her policy or intellect.  Barak Obama also became a larger than life figure of hope and change, a deity that could be believed in and represented the people in need.  Not only was he smart, but he had mojo much like McKay.   He was seen first and heard second.  Although he may have been more ambitious, his background was much like McKay’s.  He was an attorney and a man of the people.  Many of his early supporters saw him as a common man as well as a hero for getting things done in poor communities.  But like McKay, he would soon subject himself to the political machine.  In the current race for the republican presidential nomination we see the rejection of the machine by U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas).  He runs strictly on his ideals, speaks his mind but will most likely never be elected.  Even though a great deal of people identify with his message, he is just not pretty enough.  He is seen as “crazy old Ron” because he was not branded properly.  The Tea Party, which he practically started doesn’t even want him.  They want the pretty lady that doesn’t oppose the war with all the foster kids and the anti-gay husband.  
At the beginning of the film Lucas talks McKay into running by telling him that he can say anything he wants because he is just going to lose anyway.  When we see McKay speaking to the press in his office about his policies and ideas, his eyes light up as the cameras turn on and people begin to respond with great interest while Lucas sits back and lets the ball roll.  Lucas knows in that moment that once McKay gets a taste for the attention he won’t want to let it go.  He is hooked.  Progressively McKay makes concessions to his original “say anything” rule. He cuts his hair, dresses in a nice suit, and does whatever the minions tell him. He loses touch with the public. During a scene in a black neighborhood McKay approaches a basketball court followed by an entourage and video cameras to go shoot hoops with some kids.  This wasn’t his idea, but he was told to do so for publicity and image.  The kids ran in the other direction.  This shows McKay going from a man with empathy and compassion to a man who politically capitalizes on playing with kids. He is becoming not unlike the smarmy Jarmon who we see kissing babies who he calls ugly and winking at the ladies.  
Women in this film were often seen as a by-product of the men.  McKay’s wife is instantly seduced by the superficial idea of being a senator’s wife.  Once he gets a glimpse of her new love, the limelight, he is turned off by her and strays to the political groupies.   The film shows women falling over themselves to have McKay sign their bra.  I wish I could say that all women are smarter than that, but we are all human too.  The only thing missing from the film is a role for a woman that saw through McKay and called him out on his moments of fallacy and arrogance.  The only time we saw a glimpse of this was during a cutting and editing session for one of his commercials.  McKay is shown talking at several women holding crying babies in an inner city clinic.   They are clearly annoyed with his rhetoric and inability to empathize or offer  any immediate help.  McKay looks flustered and intimidated.  The void could have been filled with the character of McKay’s mother.  When McKay goes to visit his father, the tough and impermeable John J. Mckay asks about his ex-wife who is McKay’s mother. Governor McKay  tells his son that she will “bury me yet”.  I would love to have met her in this film. 
The mise en scènce is carefully crafted through the use of camera angles, shapes, as well as the Academy Award nominated sounds.  When McKay is shot from the back of the gym through all the empty chairs the sports banners hang behind him like giant red teeth eating him alive. This gives us an ominous feeling that he is in trouble.  We are also subjected to mumbling throughout the movie. This is intentional.  The machine operators were often engaging in shifty behavior that we are not supposed to understand.  If we did, it would not feel as shifty. 
  The Candidate is not a film of ideology although Redford is quite the activist and integrated much of his own into the film’s dialogue.  It is shot  in the style of a documentary and could be referred to as a “mockumentary”.  In this film we are shown the underbelly of machine politics and the costs of getting elected.  The purpose of this film was to send a message to Americans that there is always another agenda at play. We cannot build our opinions through the fear, violence and sex of the propaganda and rhetoric we are exposed on a daily basis through the media.  The film teaches us to think critically about candidates and the campaign process.