Actual grade: 9/10
(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)
It's been one month to the day since I posted my review for CONTAGION, the last movie I saw in theaters. A little something called Pilot Season has been taking up all my time since then. (And let's face it, the past month has been that awkward period between the summer blockbusters and the late fall/winter Oscar-baiting prestige pictures.) So I was super stoked to be making my return to feature-length projects with one of my most highly-anticipated films of the fall: THE IDES OF MARCH, adapted by George Clooney, produced by George Clooney, directed by George Clooney, and starring Georgey Clooney, Jennifer Ehle, Paul Giamatti, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood and Jeffrey Wright. Phew. I'm exhausted just typing all of those names. That all-star cast combined with political themes and an of-the-moment plot makes this is one of the Oscar-baitiest films of the year.
I'm always a sucker for political intrigue, from the incestuous and power-hungry Lannisters in GAME OF THRONES to the bumbling yet conniving President Logan in 24 (whose portrayer, Gregory Itzin, happens to make an appearance here). The political backdrop of the film along with the presence of Ryan Gosling, whose star power is only rising thanks to the simultaneous release of DRIVE, as well as this summer's hit CRAZY STUPID LOVE, had me hopeful that this would be one for the books. I wasn't wrong.
Mr. Gosling portrays Stephen, one of the head campaign managers for Clooney's Governor Morris, who is competing in the primaries for the Democratic nomination for President. Stephen is whip-smart, good at what he does, and has the idealistic vision that only the young can have. By contrast, everyone around him is jaded, battle-worn and merciless in their efforts to get ahead. Mr. Hoffman plays Paul, Morris' other head campaign manager, who is a veteran in the game, valuing loyalty above all else and holding his coworkers to impossibly high standards. Mr. Giamatti is Paul's nemesis on the opposing campaign, a vicious little bulldog of a man not above using strangers as pawns. Ms. Tomei is brutal as a New York Times reporter who's your best friend when she needs something from you...but will turn on you in a second for a good scoop. Mr. Wright is sleazy as a potential endorser who is willing to support whichever candidate will give him the biggest promotion. And Mr. Clooney is Morris, an outwardly genial, well-spoken, inspiring and intellectual man running for President on a platform of change and hope. Sound familiar? Even the campaign posters looked identical. The only thing they could have done to make the parallels even clearer were if he were played by an African-American. However, Clooney ends up playing surprisingly out of type, as Morris turns out to have dirty secrets of his own. It was surprising to see the notoriously-liberal George Clooney portraying an obvious Obama-type as someone so massively, if secretly, fallible. Then there's Ms. Wood's Molly, a 20-year-old intern brimming with life who accidentally finds herself in way over her head. Molly and Stephen are the lone beacons of innocence in the mire of cynicism and backstabbing, and we watch them both get torn down over the course of a brisk 100 minutes.
As is probably apparent, this is not a movie to see if you want to walk away feeling good about life. It is depressing, but also thought-provoking. It is not pointlessly cynical -- it is pointedly cynical. It doesn't contain an easy-to-swallow, feel-good message like, say, AVATAR -- it is a message to be chewed on, digested and discussed. And its timing, released in the middle of primary season leading up to next year's Presidential election, could not be more intentional. Whether the American people like the message they're being presented with here and what effect it may have on their decisions is unpredictable. But at least one point is clear -- even the most promising, hope-inspiring, change-promising person will inevitably prove to be a letdown. If they seem too good to be true, they probably are. The film asks us, does knowing someone is fallible mean they shouldn't be President? In the end, being President is just a job. We shouldn't expect these people to be saints, because they're not. They are people full of flaws and capable of making mistakes. And the higher we reach, the farther we fall.
That's an age-old message, and the film does make an attempt to be timeless. Take its, title, THE IDES OF MARCH: it implies that the themes of betrayal, revenge, backstabbing and corruption can be traced all the way back to Caesar, ancient Rome, and beyond. But the film is so of-the-moment, so clearly taken from contemporary headlines, that it is hard to think of it as anything but a cautionary tale. Right here. Right now. In this time and place, the people have become so disillusioned with the government that it's almost hard to believe Gosling's character is as idealistic as he is when the film starts. Just look at Occupy Wall Street. Politicians keep letting us down, the players are all corrupt, and the basic system is broken. In a political system that essentially only provides its people with two options, how will we ever be choosing anything but the lesser of two evils? Is it possible that a morally corrupt man could really be the best choice for President? Maybe it is. Maybe it would actually behoove the President to get a little more down and dirty. A compelling thought.
To me, one of the most interesting aspects of the film was viewing it as an example of what can happen when someone has total artistic control over a project. It was very clear that George Clooney found a project he believed in heart and soul and, in order to ensure that its message was undiluted by Hollywood bureaucracy, simply decided to take all the reins himself -- financing it, writing it, directing it and acting in it. It's the kind of power only a very select few have (a couple more that spring to mind are James Cameron and Guillermo Del Toro -- and they don't even act). Rarely do we see a film marketed so widely with such a thought-provoking message. Usually the mass-appeal movies are the ones with the simple, feel-good themes and the controversial messages are confined to little-seen indie movies. It is refreshing to see that a movie can be both commercially successful and intellectually stimulating. Unfortunately, if one has to have George Clooney's pedigree to pull it off, I don't think we'll be seeing it happen again anytime soon.
By its very nature, this film will most likely be very divisive. But all politics aside, I think it's a superb example of a successful artistic endeavor. George Clooney knew what he wanted to do and he went out and achieved it. He made exactly the movie he wanted to make. It is the kind of film that asks questions without providing solutions. It's up to your interpretation of what art means as to whether or not that qualifies as a successful work of art. If you want your films to offer solutions, then you may feel that this one falls short. If you like your films to simply ask the hard questions and then require you to find the answers for yourself, then this is a film for you. Personally, I enjoyed it, both while I was viewing it, and during the three-hour-long conversation/debate I had about it afterward. That, to me, is the mark of achievement: whether or not it leaves you talking. Whatever else THE IDES OF MARCH does, it will surely do that.
Your turn, Fellow Addicts! Were you drawn in by Clooney's pièce de résistance? Or were you turned off by the overwhelming cynicism? Did you agree with the parallels to Obama or do you think they went too far? Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment