2011. Dir: George Clooney. Starring: Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and Evan Rachel Wood. ●●●●○
I've not seen "Farrugut North", Beau Eillimon's play that forms the basis of George Clooney and Grant Heslov's latest venture, so far as I know the play hasn't made it to the UK, however right now I don't feel that I need to. Ides of March hews so closely to a theatrical experience that seeing it live can hardly bring much more to the story. The inherent staginess of the adaptation is hard for this movie to shake off, it's structure and style of moving from room to room with powerfully dressed men with distressed ties underlines how little has been changed. That said, in spite of this limitation, it's themes of loyalty and corruption (mirroring the more successful Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) are presented so thoroughly and realistically that the quality of the screenplay and acting pushes through.
Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) may only be 30 but he's a veteran of political campaigning, something he's very keen to stress to Marisa Tomei's political hack in an early pace setting introduction, and after years of backing the wrong horse he's finally found a Presidential candidate he can believe in, a man whose proto-Liberal values are only matched by his personal integrity, ladies and gentleman I give you the next president of the United States, Senator (and co-writer/director) George Clooney.
Anyone who's ever watched a political film will know that Clooney isn't all he seems to be, and in this modern sex-crazed post Clinton world it's hardly going to his atheism that's going to be his undoing. Not that Meyers guesses it, he goes right on with his hubristically unchallenged behaviour, seducing intern Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood) and getting played by rival strategist Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) until both storylines collide dramatically turning Meyers from wide eyed idolised to deft spin-doctor.
Much has been said about how Ides recalls Political thrillers from the 70's with it's intense paranoia, but to me it most closely resembles Gore Vidal's tight 1964 screenplay for The Best Man, that too was a fraught political fight between two prospective Presidential candidates set in one city during hustings, and like this modern antecedent the drama came from guys whispering poll figures, however where Henry Fonda was a flawed but moralistic politician trying to do the best for his party and desperated avoiding mudslinging, here Clooney is sidelined. Modern politics has taken the candidate, the celebrity, out of the picture, now we're more concerned with the spinners on the sides and everyone accepts the personal is part of the game.
This is an actor's wet dream, with everyone on top form. Evan Rachel Wood as the intern whose sexual precociousness hides an inner turmoil is superb, and watching Giamatti and Philip Seymour Hoffman as two old school campaigners, with their personal vendettas and careful strategies, is a joy. Hoffman has the best scene in the movie, a rip roaring speech on loyalty that somehow seems out of touch with the modern world. All this would be for nothing if Gosling couldn't handle the lead role, bringing the same blank canvas he displayed in Drive the character arc seems both irresistible and inevitable, and the final scene, of Gosling looking to camera about to give the most important interview of his life, will no doubt be one of the most hotly discussed cliffhangers of 2011 cinema.
This movie is also designed to within an inch of it's life, no decoration, no lighting set-up is left to chance, we're in no doubt that this is a movie about politics (even if it's not about Politics) from the stuffed campaign office with it's inspirational posters to the functional hotel rooms and dimly lit bars there is a real sense of place in each of the scenes. Clooney also does a good job as director keeping the tension and unpredictability of the characters even when you can see the direction where the plot is heading.
Overall I would recommend this film, of course I'm the crowd it's playing to, but it's presentation of the modern political game is both damning and compelling and short of the play coming to your town this is the next best thing.
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Ides of March
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
The Conspirator
2010. Dir: Robert Redford. Starring: James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Evan Rachel Wood, Danny Huston and Tom Wilkinson. ●●○○○
The trouble with watching films that posit a political statement that you support is that whislt the euphoria of a high quality finished article is heightened so to is abject disappointment of poorly made movie making. Sadly The Conspirator falls squarely in the later camp, for it's liberal pleading for social justice and the rule of law the inadequacies of the movie itself somewhat negate the impact of the message.
The film opens, utterly pointlessly, on the field of battle - or at least the aftermath due to budgetary constraints - with James McAvoy's serious Lt. Frederick Aitken trying to keep the horribly injured Justin Long alive by telling him an inappropriate joke. Fortunately we never hear the end as medics arrive first to cart off McAvoy but he persuades them to tend to his friend first. I suppose the point of the scene is to introduce McAvoy's self-sacrificing nature and to reinforce the bravery of the man, even to highlight his stubborness. It pretty much fails on all counts as personally I never felt McAvoy's life was in danger, as horrific as his injury may appear there's little sense of sacrifice in the scene.
This scene is important though as those qualities are repeated and reflected in McAvoy's journey through the rest of the film, and it feels equally false in context of the legal battle to save Robin Wright's Mary Surratt the mother of the Lincoln assassination support team that got away. Yes, McAvoy loses membership of his officers club, his haughty girlfriend (Alexis Bledel) and finds his sholastic legal reputation tarnished but none of that seems like a great loss and he friends seem to be prepared to stick by him at all costs. Part of this issue is McAvoy - he seems uncomforatble in the role and fails to convince as a patriotic and torn soldier forced to defend a woman he clearly imagines as guilty.
The vast majority of the running time is given over to McAvoy's defence of the case, from the early days as a paralegal to Tom Wilkinson's Southern born senator (who knows he cannot win the case due to the perception of his loyalties during the civil war and eventually manouvres McAvoy into taking the case alone) to the final summation of the case where McAvoy rails against the clearly biased military court procedure with no jury organised and orchestrated by prosecution counsellor Danny Huston - tiptoeing malevavently around the court like an oiled spider.
Robin Wright gives a great performance as the proud Southern matriach, unapologetic for her thoughts and beliefs and stubbornly refusing to save her victimisation (the film unequivocably indicates her likely innocence) by selling out her absentee son. Stoical, even in the shadows of the gallows, Wright is able to bring layers to the character that simply aren't there in the script a tilt of the head or a flicker of cheeks making up for the lack of anything for her to do. Equally under-represented with the screenplay is Evan Rachel Wood as her daughter Anna, although she too tries her best dodging the over obvious symbolism in the set decoration.
Whenever we leave those two ladies the pace of the film suffers though, McAvoy's priviledged circle pontificate self-righteously but come across as boorish or irrelevant. Robert Redford, directing James D. Solomon's script, seems unable to coax any sense of reality form the supporting cast of Army officers and Kevin Kline's bespectacled Edwin Stanton, gleefully pushing over the rule of law in order to give the public the sense of retribution they desire is given no sense of character depth.
Redford has yet to make an interesting movie, essentially the best of his films have been well staged insightful scripts, and that workmanlike style is shown up in all it's inadequate slendour given the meandering, preachy script.
And remember this review is from someone who wanted to like the film. I would argue for the fundamental rights of habeous corpus for all. The continued injustice of Guantanamo Bay (and you could argue the foreign policies of extraordinary rendition, military tribunal and indefinate incarceration without charge are the real subjects of this film) is a cancer in the US constition, it blights the best intentions of the early signatories and the principles of justice must be applied to even those accused of the most heinous crimes. So just imagine what the the backers and apologists of the war on terror will make of this film.
We on the left deserve so much better.
