Ides of March

Image source

George Clooney is the writer/director/producer of Ides of March, and has chosen to explore the dirty underbelly of politics and current events in his subject matter.  In this film Clooney plays Mike Morris, an idealist, energized, honest and down to earth governor hoping to win the democratic ticket in the primaries. Ryan Gosling is Stephen Meyers, Morris' idealistic, energized, honest and down to earth campaign strategist who finds himself privy to information which renders him unable to trust those around, his mentors, or even his own instincts.  Despite his best intentions to avoid it, he realizes that if he is to have any success in this field he must succumb and become a tool in the machine of political conniving and deception.

In the film, Morris turns out not to be the upstanding family man he portrays himself to be.  He is neither noble nor selfless and ultimately all of the pontificating he does about values proves to be lip service to the public so he can get what he wants.  He energizes crowds by saying what they want to hear, not what he believes in or what he intends to do. 

On basic level, March takes on the dishonesty of politicians and the lying and cheating they all do to get to the top.  In that sense it's an old story - politicians lie.  We all know that.  The interesting piece of this film, however, is when it's seen as an allegory to the current administration and leadership.  Morris is clearly meant to be an Obama figure (the imagery aligns him as such in almost every way down to the copycat iconic "Hope" poster).  Is this how Clooney has come to see Obama?  In the last 3-ish years of his presidency (even less if you stop counting when the script was written) has Obama become such a major failure that even his staunchest Hollywood supporter sees him nothing more than a liar?

Clooney has been an ardent supporter of President Obama and in this film he seems to be conveying his disappointment, possibly in Obama himself, but more likely in the political system as a whole.  Not to say that he believes that Obama has done some of the terrible things Morris has done to get to the top.  Rather it seems to be saying that no matter how impressive a candidate starts out as, they will inevitably disappoint they're supporters.  There is no nobility or altruism in this field and anyone who thinks otherwise will be disappointed. 

This film does a good job at depicting what could be a real life political cover-up and explains the inner-workings of campaign strategists and how they interact with the press and the campaign managers from other candidates.  A stellar cast rounds out the other supporting characters - Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood all shine in their roles bringing depth and life to their characters.  At times it seems some of the lengths they go to might not be plausible, but really I wouldn't put it past anyone running for office to be as sleazy as the movie makes them out to see, despite the shiny exterior.  And that's ultimately the message the film is going for.

History Repeats

I'm happy, even proud, to admit the only Fox News I watch is when Jon Stewart shows clips from the shows. I don't have a Nielsen box so even if I did watch they wouldn't get the rating points, but even still I can't bring myself to ever opt to watch it.  I also admit, although not for reasons of disdain but for reasons of boredom I don't watch C-Span or any other programs which cover congressional or senatorial sessions.  Recently The Daily Show did a couple of segments that featured Fox News and a senate session quite prominently that got me thinking about something that I thought was important to discuss.

First is Fox News' insistence on creating a so-called war on Christmas by individuals or companies who offer wishes of "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or "tree lighting" and not "Christmas tree lighting". Puh-lease!  As though this country would ever neglect Christmas. Aside from our innate Christianity, our capitalist nature would never allow for it lest profit margins decline. Fox News, you're just being narrow minded and evangelical just inciting conflict.  It it has to stop.

The second segment he did, and this is more significant, was on the senates recent proposal to pass a bill which would essentially disregard the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.  This bill would allow the courts to jail anyone who could be considered a terrorist or associated with a terrorist. The qualifications for "terrorist" include things from people who are missing fingers to anyone who has more that 7 days worth of food in their pantries. These are arbitrary and dangerous qualifications to base terrorist activities on and since its in the name of "keeping America safe" there has been little outrage over the fact that aside from the disregard of civil liberties, we are turning our backs on our Constitution, a document whose main objective was to protect the rights of our citizens, not to vilify them. 

I, however, am outraged and cannot believe we as Americans are refusing to learn from our past to recognize this dangerous path down which we are headed. A little over a half century ago senator Joseph McCarthy allowed the same fear mongering to go on in the name of catching communists. He accused anyone of anti-American activities and of being a communist, no matter how peripheral their connection was.  Ultimately, he was proven to have caused more harm than good for this country and history has not been kind to him. 

However, it's important to note that during his time, the time the country was in a large part behind him because they feared their freedoms to be at risk, despite the lives that would be ruined forever.  This was a dark spot on our modern history and one which should never be repeated.  The movie Good Night and Good Luck forewarned us of the potential of such unfortunate events repeating themselves and yet no one seems to have heeded the warning.

With all that is being said and done in the name of "protecting religion and our freedom" basic rights are being violated with little to no outcry over the utter irresponsibility of these actions.  The ideal of separation between church and state seems to be evolving more and more into "state dependent on church."  Enough trouble has been caused in this world based on religious extremism and the last thing we should be doing is following that model, albeit in a different manifestation.  We should be aware enough to learn from our national mistakes lest we fall prey to them again and allow history to unabashedly repeat itself.

The Descendants

Image Source

The Descendants is the latest George Clooney movie to be making Oscar noise (don't they all though?).  Coming quick off the heels of Ides of March, this vehicle is a departure from general Clooney-ness.  As seasoned movie-goers, we’ve become conditioned to expect to see him as often the charismatic and moral center of his films.  His characters always know what to say and can generally charm anyone he encounters.  Even when he’s not being the moral center (see Ides)¸he’s still in charge and knows how to handle any situation in which he’s placed.  It’s unusual seeing this side of Clooney, the clumsy, unsure of himself and a little paunchy, it’s nice to see that he’s actually a good actor and when he stretches his characters he can thrive in that setting as well. 

Set in Hawaii, Clooney is Matt King, a 4^th or 5^th generation Hawaiian whose wife is in a coma after suffering from a terrible head injury due to a boating accident.  While dealing with his wife’s current state and coming to terms with the fact that now he will have to take a more active role in his daughters’ lives, he also learns that his wife has been cheating on him.  To add to his stress level, in the coming days he will have to make a major decision regarding the sale of hundreds of acres of his family’s land on the island of Kauai.

Things all seem to pile on him at once, and unable to handle the pressure, this actor whose characters generally take things in stride, starts to crack.  In fact, Matt is someone who didn't take things in stride, he ignored them and brushed them under the rug, never wanting to deal with them.  In one particularly intense scene he starts screaming at his comatose wife, finally expressing the emotions he's been unable to share till this point. It's interesting to see this scene juxtaposed to the one when he says goodbye to her.  It's a cinematic treat seeing the character development of a character come full circle.  

As Matt is considering the sale of his family's land at the same time he is reconnecting to his daughters and coming to terms with his wife's ultimate demise, the relationship between the characters and the land is interesting.  While creating a sense of connection between the land that, as Matt admits, has come to him through nothing he’s actually done to deserve it.  Through learning to appreciate his family, the daughters who he fully admitted to being disconnected to, he also learns to appreciate this land, as is also a connection to his family.  As a parent he fully admits to being the "understudy," the parent who steps in only when his wife was unable.  Now he must take full responsibility for his daughters.  So too with the land he must accept responsibility for a property that was placed in his lap, a responsibility which is cannot neglect nor deny. 

The runaway stars of this film are the two young actresses who play the daughters.  Amara Miller is the precocious 10 year old who is more naïve than she wants you to believe.  The Secret Life of an American Teenager’s Shailene Woodley is the other daughter, Alexandra, the troublemaking 17 year old.  Alexandra’s drinking, swearing and general rebelliousness seems to be the cause of her dad’s abundance grey hair.  However, Alexandra becomes his confidant and the one person he learns to trust throughout this ordeal.  She is stronger and more mature than he ever appreciated and turns out to be the rock he can center this new life on.  Hers is a powerful performance and I’m sure we’ll be seeing more of her in the future.

As the first directorial effort from Alexander Payne since 2004’s Sideways, this film nonetheless has all the hallmarks of a Payne film.  Its aesthetics, dark, dry humor all point to Payne.  The film also shows a version of Hawaii rarely seen, and this seems to have been a very deliberate decision as it creates a sense of realism in an world which is so often considered anything but “real life.”  By setting this film in a place which is often expected to be idyllic and paradise-like the predicament in which the characters find themselves is made more universal and relatable.  As though to say, just because something looks great on the outside doesn’t mean to say there isn’t trouble there.  This also allows the audience to accept their situations as well.  Watching this film can be a lesson to us all that while we might think all our troubles are so dire and everyone else around us has it all figured out, that is not really the case and people are struggling just like us.  Just like Matt had to learn to appreciate his family, something he had begun to take for granted, only when something tragic occurred, so too should we learn from his mistakes and appreciate what we’ve got going on in our lives.

Relying on familiar tropes of, “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” and “appreciate what you have before it’s gone,” I pretty much was able to ascertain a sense of how the film was going to end.  There are some twists and turns, but overall the film pretty much holds to your expectations of how a troubled family will ultimately band together to handle a severe trauma and come to appreciate each other like never before.