"The Ides of March" is a film about the death of idealism at the hands of a murderously cutthroat political system. It is not a political thriller. No guns blaze in leather-clad hands. No pricey sedans try to run people down in shadowy parking garages. This is more about political manipulation than plot twists. The only assassins in "The Ides of March" are out to kill the democratic process. It can trace it's cinematic lineage back to "The Candidate" and "All the President's Men", films about the corruption of American ideals in the quest for power. That's highfalutin' prose about what turns out to be a very simple and straight-forward story. And if this film is even a little bit truthful, man, America is screwed.
George Clooney plays a presidential candidate in a two-way race for the nomination. He has the inside track but there are still some dirty political tricks to play. His campaign manager, (an excellent Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his political strategist and media coordinator (Ryan Gosling) have the nomination almost sewn up when that old nemesis of political candidates everywhere shows up-the pretty campaign intern. God, by now you'd think that these guys would learn to keep their pants zipped.
The idealistic Gosling now has messes to clean up- the girl needs an abortion, there's a nosy reporter from the Times (Marissa Tomei is really terrific-what a great career she has) and then he has to deal with the rival campaign manager who is a master manipulator of the process (another excellent performance by Paul Giamatti).
The plot is really not all that complicated, sparse even. But who comes out on top and how they do it is a fascinating treatise on the process. It ain't pretty but it's fascinating. When you combine crisp writing and sparkling acting with a point of view, good filmmaking is sure to follow. It does so here.
This film is the George Clooney show. He co-writes, directs and stars. But as usual lately, the brightest star in the constellation is Ryan Gosling. His talent level doesn't really surprise me anymore. Now it's all about the kind of roles he chooses and this choice adds admirably to his catalogue.
It'll be interesting to see if this one gets the same kind of awards traction that "Goodnight and Good Luck" did. It just might score big time. It really does deserve it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are too kind... no really.
ReplyDeleteI hesitated posting this, but then I thought, ah what the hell... for you and for posterity ...
ReplyDeleteI suppose I risk sounding hypercritical, but this is one cynical, twisted film... but probably not for the intended reasons the filmmakers imagined... The character Paul (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) makes a comment in the middle of the movie about the choices we make and how they make us. The filmmakers would have done well to have taken this advice. It seems there may have been an opportunity to tell the story of an idealistic young man (Gosling) nearly beaten by a dirty political system, but at a critical moment this story, inadvertently leads us to believe that he was no more than an amoral opportunist from the beginning... The GIRL'S DEATH and the reasons surrounding it, are a game changer in any moral universe, and what we are given in this overcooked melodrama (with a heavy handed political thriller score) is that HER DEMISE is the event which allows for revenge and a fat reward for our slighted protagonist... Really?!!! How can we view his actions which follow her death as anything other than those of a sociopath! His chilling "I've got the suicide note" scene with Clooney is pure Machiavellian sugar. Then of course Hoffman's pat on the back, you got me kid "No hard feelings" speech after the GIRL'S FUNERAL and Tomei's reporter "ah kid, I was just doing my job, no hard feelings" pitch near the end, while Gosling gives her the cold "you used and abused me, but I got you back", sarcastic, no hard feelings comment and puppy dog stare, might make for good political satire, if only that is what the filmmakers had intended. Slick, slick, slick film though, and the actors look good too.
One more moment with the poorly titled "ides of march", (please give me a credible reason for the title . it could just as easily have been titled 2 days after the ides of march. That is a riddle. What its the answer?)
Seriously though, I think this was a serious effort. And I might have liked it better if they had given the lead a real soul. The film is clever and snappy up until it makes the fatal flaw. If you notice, this is where most of my earlier commentary falls. they chose cheap theatrics, when the film may have had a chance to rip these characters open, especially Gosling and Clooney, and ask them to deliver a message about the choice between conscience and ambition.
And I don't buy that that the film doesn't try to do too much... These guys are shooting for Oscars, tell me I am wrong?