list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Primary Colors on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Primary_Colors/116454/default.aspx Title: Primary Colors
Year: 1998
Director: Mike Nichols
Plot: Mike Nichols directed this Elaine May screenplay adapted from the 1996 bestseller by "Anonymous" (Joe Klein), who fictionalized Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign. In the New Hampshire primary, Governor Jack Stanton (John Travolta) convinces Henry Burton (Adrian Lester), grandson of a respected civil rights pioneer, to become his deputy campaign manager. Stanton's smart wife Susan (Emma Thompson) always comes through with public support for her philandering husband. The film's parallel for James Carville is Stanton's redneck advisor Richard Jemmons (Billy Bob Thornton), who knows every strategy and tactic but worries, "The woman thing, that's the killer." Sure enough, problems during the New Hampshire primary include charges of adultery. To get a handle on past peccadillos, Stanton's staff brings in an old family friend, lesbian Libby Holden (Kathy Bates), who knows how to clean up dirt. Stanton, a strong debater, moves on to Florida and New York. When one opposing candidate drops dead of a heart attack, he's replaced by Florida's Governor Fred Picker (Larry Hagman), but Holden holds the skeleton key to the skeleton in Picker's closet. Just how the Stantons put this information to use reveals whether they are ruthless politicians or inspirational leaders with ideals. ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 5
Number of Lists: 10
Number of blog posts: 7
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:00:44 GMTPrimary Colors1998Mike Nichols<a href="/players/P___104435/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mike Nichols</a> directed this <a href="/players/P___101817/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Elaine May</a> screenplay adapted from the 1996 bestseller by "Anonymous" (Joe Klein), who fictionalized Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign. In the New Hampshire primary, Governor Jack Stanton (<a href="/players/P____71670/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Travolta</a>) convinces Henry Burton (<a href="/players/P___232663/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Adrian Lester</a>), grandson of a respected civil rights pioneer, to become his deputy campaign manager. Stanton's smart wife Susan (<a href="/players/P____70692/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Emma Thompson</a>) always comes through with public support for her philandering husband. The film's parallel for James Carville is Stanton's redneck advisor Richard Jemmons (<a href="/players/P____70825/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Billy Bob Thornton</a>), who knows every strategy and tactic but worries, "The woman thing, that's the killer." Sure enough, problems during the New Hampshire primary include charges of adultery. To get a handle on past peccadillos, Stanton's staff brings in an old family friend, lesbian Libby Holden (<a href="/players/P_____4516/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kathy Bates</a>), who knows how to clean up dirt. Stanton, a strong debater, moves on to Florida and New York. When one opposing candidate drops dead of a heart attack, he's replaced by Florida's Governor Fred Picker (<a href="/players/P_____9336/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Larry Hagman</a>), but Holden holds the skeleton key to the skeleton in Picker's closet. Just how the Stantons put this information to use reveals whether they are ruthless politicians or inspirational leaders with ideals. ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide5Slightly Tagged (1-5)1073http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t03218kymjd.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Primary_Colors/116454/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/5/36990.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/5/2008 1:00:44 PM
Body: My mom has the hots for President Clinton as badly as I swoon for Arnold Schwarzenegger, both of us turning into goofy schoolgirls at the mere mention of our respective crushes. While the Governator’s arrogant, aggressive virility drives me wild, personally I’ve never fantasized about Arkansas charmer Slick Willy. And yet I’d be thrilled to bed John Travolta , who embodied Bill Clinton via the character of Jack Stanton in Mike Nichols’ 1998 Primary Colors, a thinly veiled account of the would-be president’s rise to stardom during the 1992 primaries, with a swift-moving screenplay by Elaine May based on political reporter Joe Klein’s originally “Anonymous” novel. Travolta as Stanton perfectly captured the sexy essence of Clinton then topped it with his well-honed movie star touch. The similarities between the two aging icons are striking. Primary Colors begins and ends with the famous “Stanton handshake,” shots of the many ways the southern governor greets his supporters, the positioning of his free hand on an arm sending a subliminal signal, from sparkling playfulness to grave empathy, to the adoring fan. He connects with people through pressing the flesh, literally through touch. Stanton, like Clinton, is a visceral character, full of warmth and life. Which also perfectly describes Travolta, who has always cultivated the same image of accessibility, the Jersey boy from the hardworking Irish-Italian-American family who never forgot his roots. Neither Stanton/Clinton nor Travolta were silver spoon fed; both earned fame and fortune through sheer sweat and tenacity. In fact, it’s nearly impossible to imagine either Clinton or Travolta being spoon-fed at all. Even as Stanton shoves a donut in his mouth as if he’s popping a peanut, Travolta’s own hearty appetite shines right through. These are men of insatiable hunger who attack life with gusto. They’re also not afraid to play by their own rules. Who would have thought a small-time southern politician with a campaign run by passionate novices would become leader of the free world? Who could have imagined the dude who played Vinnie Barbarino would become an international sex symbol? I’m sure Travolta, like Clinton, never thought it farfetched for a second. And this especially is the root of their steamy appeal: a combination of knowing self-confidence, charm and good looks coupled with a downright honest vulnerability. There’s a lost little boy innocence locked inside their big men’s bodies. Stanton weeps openly as a man in an adult literacy program describes the shame he felt upon graduating with an honor in “attendance” –  Clinton’s “I feel your pain” core personified. Likewise, Travolta as sweet Vincent Vega dancing and whacking his way through Pulp Fiction, and especially turning in an astonishingly mature, heartrending performance as Tony Manero in Saturday Night Fever, garnered Academy Award nominations – and these things just don’t go to guys who fear wearing their hearts on their sleeves. Which doesn’t mean that they’re not also shrewd and calculating. In Primary Colors Stanton has the foresight to have his arrest at the DNC convention in ’68 expunged from the record, lest it return to haunt him. I don’t think it’s an accident that before the flops following Urban Cowboy, Travolta was untouchable, box office gold. Though both men are gamblers never shying from heart-pounding risk (Stanton/Clinton with his serial infidelities, Travolta starring as Edna Turnblad in the remake of Hairspray), they’re also experts at planning the next move while making it look like it was all divine provenance. In Primary Colors Stanton refers to Lincoln being a whore before he was a president. There’s something sexy about a man who doesn’t mind getting his working hands dirty – who revels in the mud. And yet sly Stanton/Clinton won the presidency by wooing voters like a patient respectful lover. “Now don’t break our hearts,” a campaign staffer says to Stanton at his inauguration. No coincidence it’s a specialty that’s always been Travolta’s own stock in trade. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/5/2008 1:00:44 PMMy mom has the hots for President Clinton as badly as I swoon for Arnold Schwarzenegger, both of us turning into goofy schoolgirls at the mere mention of our respective crushes. While the Governator’s arrogant, aggressive virility drives me wild, personally I’ve never fantasized about Arkansas charmer Slick Willy. And yet I’d be thrilled to bed John Travolta , who embodied Bill Clinton via the character of Jack Stanton in Mike Nichols’ 1998 Primary Colors, a thinly veiled account of the would-be president’s rise to stardom during the 1992 primaries, with a swift-moving screenplay by Elaine May based on political reporter Joe Klein’s originally “Anonymous” novel. Travolta as Stanton perfectly captured the sexy essence of Clinton then topped it with his well-honed movie star touch. The similarities between the two aging icons are striking. Primary Colors begins and ends with the famous “Stanton handshake,” shots of the many ways the southern governor greets his supporters, the positioning of his free hand on an arm sending a subliminal signal, from sparkling playfulness to grave empathy, to the adoring fan. He connects with people through pressing the flesh, literally through touch. Stanton, like Clinton, is a visceral character, full of warmth and life. Which also perfectly describes Travolta, who has always cultivated the same image of accessibility, the Jersey boy from the hardworking Irish-Italian-American family who never forgot his roots. Neither Stanton/Clinton nor Travolta were silver spoon fed; both earned fame and fortune through sheer sweat and tenacity. In fact, it’s nearly impossible to imagine either Clinton or Travolta being spoon-fed at all. Even as Stanton shoves a donut in his mouth as if he’s popping a peanut, Travolta’s own hearty appetite shines right through. These are men of insatiable hunger who attack life with gusto. They’re also not afraid to play by their own rules. Who would have thought a small-time southern politician with a campaign run by passionate novices would become leader of the free world? Who could have imagined the dude who played Vinnie Barbarino would become an international sex symbol? I’m sure Travolta, like Clinton, never thought it farfetched for a second. And this especially is the root of their steamy appeal: a combination of knowing self-confidence, charm and good looks coupled with a downright honest vulnerability. There’s a lost little boy innocence locked inside their big men’s bodies. Stanton weeps openly as a man in an adult literacy program describes the shame he felt upon graduating with an honor in “attendance” –  Clinton’s “I feel your pain” core personified. Likewise, Travolta as sweet Vincent Vega dancing and whacking his way through Pulp Fiction, and especially turning in an astonishingly mature, heartrending performance as Tony Manero in Saturday Night Fever, garnered Academy Award nominations – and these things just don’t go to guys who fear wearing their hearts on their sleeves. Which doesn’t mean that they’re not also shrewd and calculating. In Primary Colors Stanton has the foresight to have his arrest at the DNC convention in ’68 expunged from the record, lest it return to haunt him. I don’t think it’s an accident that before the flops following Urban Cowboy, Travolta was untouchable, box office gold. Though both men are gamblers never shying from heart-pounding risk (Stanton/Clinton with his serial infidelities, Travolta starring as Edna Turnblad in the remake of Hairspray), they’re also experts at planning the next move while making it look like it was all divine provenance. In Primary Colors Stanton refers to Lincoln being a whore before he was a president. There’s something sexy about a man who doesn’t mind getting his working hands dirty – who revels in the mud. And yet sly Stanton/Clinton won the presidency by wooing voters like a patient respectful lover. “Now don’t break our hearts,” a campaign staffer says to Stanton at his inauguration. No coincidence it’s a specialty that’s always been Travolta’s own stock in trade. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/4/36971.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/4/2008 6:01:24 PM
Body: Are you walking around with your “I Voted!” sticker proudly adhered to your chest? If not, get out there and do some lever pulling, chad punching, and ballot dropping. Then take the rest ofthe day off and watch one of these movies that’ll get you through the rest of election day and away from the nail-biting edge of election return coverage. There are a few minor spoilers inside, but don’t view that as me messing with the ballot box. You’ll still love the movies more than CNN’s infographics. Citizen Kane Yes, it’s the grandaddy at the top of every “best of” list, but people don’t really think of it as an election film. However, there’s an election right in the heart of it. Charles Foster Kane runs for the governorship of New York, and has a good chance of winning until he’s at the heart of a scandal involving a woman and the incumbent governor, Boss Jim W. Gettys. His campaign speech in front of the enormous poster of himself is one of the most iconic images from the film, and also the turning point for his ultimate fall from grace in the film. The Candidate Robert Redford’s darkly comic film about a race for one of the California senate seats shows how volatile and tupsy-turvy politics can be. Peter Boyle is supposed to find someone to unseat a popular Republican Senator, but know that they are so far ahead it won’t matter who he gets. Eventually he goes after the extremely unlike candidate Bill McKay, played by Redford, and tells him it doesn’t matter what he does, he’s going to lose. So he’s free to do what he wants on the campaign trail. However, he finally decides he doesn’t want to go down by a landslide and fights back, eventually even winning the race. In the famous scene at the end, Redford finds Boyle and asks, “What do we do now?” America might very well be asking that question tomorrow. The Contender Joan Allen has had a couple of brushes with the White House. She played first lady Pat Nixon in Oliver Stone’s Nixon, for which she received an Academy Award nomination, and inThe Contender she plays a Democratic senator from Ohio who becomes the new Vice-Presidential nominee when the President (Jeff Bridges) has his own VP die while in office. It’s a well-acted exploration of sexual politics, and revolves around an event that may or may not have happened to Allen’s character in college. Gary Oldman vamps it up as a congressman who blocks Allen’s appointment, Jeff Bridges make a terrific president and Sam Elliot is a wonderfully hardassed Chief of Staff, but it’s really Joan Allen who amazes in this film. Bob Roberts Tim Robbins’ film about a folksy Pennsylvania senate candidate who learns how to manipulate the system was actually based on a Saturday Night Live sketch from 1986 featuring Robbins as the same character. It’s full of twangy music, borrows heavily from Bob Dylan, and turns sinister towards the end with a possibly faked assassination attempt that puts Roberts in office. The songs are the most memorable part of the film, although the soundtrack was never released because Tim Robbins didn’t want the songs to be played out of context. Like… as a John McCain rally song, which would have sent Robbins into fits of apoplexy. Election It might take place in the halls of high school, but it’s a snapshot not just of the formative years of teenager, but of the entire political process as well. Easily Reese Witherspoon’s best film, her evil and vindictive Tracy Flick isn’t someone you want to cross, or even run against. Although if your opponent is the sickly sweet Chris Klein (who even votes for Tracy), then you don’t really have to worry about competition. Matthew Broderick desperately tries to stop her rise to power, which provides some of the funniest moments in the film, including a recount scandal that rivals the Bush/Gore election. Mr. Smith Goes To Washington They don’t make films like this anymore, and Washington would certainly never give us an ending this neat and clean, but it’s one of Jimmy Stewart’s most endearing roles and it’s still inspirational some 50 years later. It has the best filibuster ever on film, although the confessional moment at the end would never happen in today’s political climate. Stewart’s Smith is still the kind of character you can get behind and root for today, and should probably be required viewing upon assuming any office in D.C. Primary Colors Based on the book that was inspired by Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 1992, John Travolta actually does a decent job as a southern governor running for office in this Mike Nichols film. It’s hard to believe that it’s been 10 years since this movie came out, although it was a bit too late to ride on the coattails of the book two years earlier. When the novel came out by “Anonymous” (later revealed to be journalist Joe Klein) it was on everyone’s lips. Besides Travolta’s Clinton impersonation, the movie didn’t generate nearly as many waves. Still, it’s worth watcing on this Election Tuesday, if nothing other than to tweak your nostalgia circuit. Wag the Dog This movie is mostly terrific for Dustin Hoffman’s excellent Robert Evans impersonation throughout the movie. He plays a Hollywood producer brought in by De Niro’s political spin doctor character to create a fake war in order to distract from the President’s ongoing sex scandal. It proves to be ridiculously successful, and is loosely based on Larry Beinhart’s novel American Hero. Although in the book the president is George H.W. Bush, and the war Opeation Desert Storm. Still, it works a bit better as a dark comedy rather than being based on actual events, although Beinhart’s book is well worth reading. Nixon I wasn’t originally a fan of this Oliver Stone movie, but it’s been playing on cable a lot the past month, and I usually end up watching it whenever I flip channels. Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of Nixon is incredibly intricate, showing both his paranoid side, and his detached loneliness. As Paul Sorvino’s Henry Kissinger in the film says, “Can you imagine what this man would be like had anyone ever loved him?” It’s also a slap the the face to W, which doesn’t even feel like an Oliver Stone movie. Nixon has teeth, W is a softball. Probably one of Hopkins’ meatiest roles as an actor, and the DVD version with 28 minutes of extra footage will get you through the entire night. Recount When HBO announced this film, I remember cringing and thinking “Won’t the controversy ever go away? It’s like pouring salt in an open wound!” Then I saw the movie, and I loved it. However, I can’t watch it all the way through because I get incredibly angry whenever I see it. Forget about what would have happened if Nixon was loved. What about what our country would be like now if Gore had been elected. How different would things be now? Would we be at war? Would the economy be in the toilet? We’ll never know, but this film really gives you a hard look at the process that put Bush in office, and how full of holes (and dangling chads) it really is. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:01:24 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/4/2008 6:01:24 PMAre you walking around with your “I Voted!” sticker proudly adhered to your chest? If not, get out there and do some lever pulling, chad punching, and ballot dropping. Then take the rest ofthe day off and watch one of these movies that’ll get you through the rest of election day and away from the nail-biting edge of election return coverage. There are a few minor spoilers inside, but don’t view that as me messing with the ballot box. You’ll still love the movies more than CNN’s infographics. Citizen Kane Yes, it’s the grandaddy at the top of every “best of” list, but people don’t really think of it as an election film. However, there’s an election right in the heart of it. Charles Foster Kane runs for the governorship of New York, and has a good chance of winning until he’s at the heart of a scandal involving a woman and the incumbent governor, Boss Jim W. Gettys. His campaign speech in front of the enormous poster of himself is one of the most iconic images from the film, and also the turning point for his ultimate fall from grace in the film. The Candidate Robert Redford’s darkly comic film about a race for one of the California senate seats shows how volatile and tupsy-turvy politics can be. Peter Boyle is supposed to find someone to unseat a popular Republican Senator, but know that they are so far ahead it won’t matter who he gets. Eventually he goes after the extremely unlike candidate Bill McKay, played by Redford, and tells him it doesn’t matter what he does, he’s going to lose. So he’s free to do what he wants on the campaign trail. However, he finally decides he doesn’t want to go down by a landslide and fights back, eventually even winning the race. In the famous scene at the end, Redford finds Boyle and asks, “What do we do now?” America might very well be asking that question tomorrow. The Contender Joan Allen has had a couple of brushes with the White House. She played first lady Pat Nixon in Oliver Stone’s Nixon, for which she received an Academy Award nomination, and inThe Contender she plays a Democratic senator from Ohio who becomes the new Vice-Presidential nominee when the President (Jeff Bridges) has his own VP die while in office. It’s a well-acted exploration of sexual politics, and revolves around an event that may or may not have happened to Allen’s character in college. Gary Oldman vamps it up as a congressman who blocks Allen’s appointment, Jeff Bridges make a terrific president and Sam Elliot is a wonderfully hardassed Chief of Staff, but it’s really Joan Allen who amazes in this film. Bob Roberts Tim Robbins’ film about a folksy Pennsylvania senate candidate who learns how to manipulate the system was actually based on a Saturday Night Live sketch from 1986 featuring Robbins as the same character. It’s full of twangy music, borrows heavily from Bob Dylan, and turns sinister towards the end with a possibly faked assassination attempt that puts Roberts in office. The songs are the most memorable part of the film, although the soundtrack was never released because Tim Robbins didn’t want the songs to be played out of context. Like… as a John McCain rally song, which would have sent Robbins into fits of apoplexy. Election It might take place in the halls of high school, but it’s a snapshot not just of the formative years of teenager, but of the entire political process as well. Easily Reese Witherspoon’s best film, her evil and vindictive Tracy Flick isn’t someone you want to cross, or even run against. Although if your opponent is the sickly sweet Chris Klein (who even votes for Tracy), then you don’t really have to worry about competition. Matthew Broderick desperately tries to stop her rise to power, which provides some of the funniest moments in the film, including a recount scandal that rivals the Bush/Gore election. Mr. Smith Goes To Washington They don’t make films like this anymore, and Washington would certainly never give us an ending this neat and clean, but it’s one of Jimmy Stewart’s most endearing roles and it’s still inspirational some 50 years later. It has the best filibuster ever on film, although the confessional moment at the end would never happen in today’s political climate. Stewart’s Smith is still the kind of character you can get behind and root for today, and should probably be required viewing upon assuming any office in D.C. Primary Colors Based on the book that was inspired by Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 1992, John Travolta actually does a decent job as a southern governor running for office in this Mike Nichols film. It’s hard to believe that it’s been 10 years since this movie came out, although it was a bit too late to ride on the coattails of the book two years earlier. When the novel came out by “Anonymous” (later revealed to be journalist Joe Klein) it was on everyone’s lips. Besides Travolta’s Clinton impersonation, the movie didn’t generate nearly as many waves. Still, it’s worth watcing on this Election Tuesday, if nothing other than to tweak your nostalgia circuit. Wag the Dog This movie is mostly terrific for Dustin Hoffman’s excellent Robert Evans impersonation throughout the movie. He plays a Hollywood producer brought in by De Niro’s political spin doctor character to create a fake war in order to distract from the President’s ongoing sex scandal. It proves to be ridiculously successful, and is loosely based on Larry Beinhart’s novel American Hero. Although in the book the president is George H.W. Bush, and the war Opeation Desert Storm. Still, it works a bit better as a dark comedy rather than being based on actual events, although Beinhart’s book is well worth reading. Nixon I wasn’t originally a fan of this Oliver Stone movie, but it’s been playing on cable a lot the past month, and I usually end up watching it whenever I flip channels. Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of Nixon is incredibly intricate, showing both his paranoid side, and his detached loneliness. As Paul Sorvino’s Henry Kissinger in the film says, “Can you imagine what this man would be like had anyone ever loved him?” It’s also a slap the the face to W, which doesn’t even feel like an Oliver Stone movie. Nixon has teeth, W is a softball. Probably one of Hopkins’ meatiest roles as an actor, and the DVD version with 28 minutes of extra footage will get you through the entire night. Recount When HBO announced this film, I remember cringing and thinking “Won’t the controversy ever go away? It’s like pouring salt in an open wound!” Then I saw the movie, and I loved it. However, I can’t watch it all the way through because I get incredibly angry whenever I see it. Forget about what would have happened if Nixon was loved. What about what our country would be like now if Gore had been elected. How different would things be now? Would we be at war? Would the economy be in the toilet? We’ll never know, but this film really gives you a hard look at the process that put Bush in office, and how full of holes (and dangling chads) it really is. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/4/34764.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/4/2008 5:01:10 PM
Body: Earlier this week, I recommended 10 movies for Democrats to watch. So, to balance things out and hopefully show a lack of bias, I’ve now selected 10 recommendations for Republicans, too. This was actually the more difficult task, because there are so many classic films that display conservative values — and in the 1980s alone, I think there were about a billion films promoting relatively right-wing lifestyles and ideas. Therefore, I’ve limited my picks to the last two decades, except for one underrated gem that left me with quite an impression as a boy. The Dark Knight (2008) Some said Batman is Bush, others said Cheney, but either way this past summer’s superhero blockbuster resonated with certain conservatives who saw the film as something of an argument about — if not apology for — the actions of the current administration. Similarly, this summer’s Hancock and Iron Man have been read as being particularly relative to Republican politics. We Were Soldiers (2002) At first it was shocking to me that John McCain’s pick for best Vietnam movie is this overly dramatic disappointment from director Randall Wallace, which stars Mel Gibson. Then I realized that it’s one of the few Vietnam movies without a completely negative slant on the conflict. In fact, it portrays an official U.S. victory, making it somewhat optimistic compared to technically better films like Platoon and Apocalypse Now. Primary Colors (1998) This veiled depiction of Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign is hardly one-sided, and it’s certainly not intended to be a political attack in the way Oliver Stone’s upcoming W. is, but it’s the perhaps the closest thing Republicans have to a parallel to W., Nixon, Dick and other lampoons of GOP presidents. Commando (1985) Here it is, the one recommendation produced prior to the mid-90s, and with good reason. When I was a kid, this movie made me think guns and other weaponry were the coolest things in the world. I had the Commando action figure, which made G.I. Joe look like a total wimp, and I celebrated such accessories as the Bowie knife and the rocket launcher. While plenty of films from the ’80s feature lots of arms, and many of these movies are about rogue missions of vengeance and/or rescue, for some reason it was this specific movie that resonated most. Between my love for this and Red Dawn, I’m shocked that I didn’t grow up to be a member of either the NRA or the GOP. Juno (2007) This is an obvious choice due to all the Juno/Juneau jokes that came with the Bristol Palin baby news, but despite its relevancy to current events, the movie was already somewhat embraced by conservatives who saw Juno’s decision not to have an abortion as a slighty pro-life statement. Cheaper by the Dozen (2003) Another movie that the Palin clan reminds me of is this loose remake and its sequel, as well as the similarly remade giant-family comedy Yours, Mine and Ours. The worlds these films exist in have apparently never heard of abortion or birth control of any kind. Independence Day (1996) I doubt that in such a worldwide alien attack that the U.S. will have the best method of response, but anyway, this nationalistic sci-fi movie is a perfect fantasy for Republicans who think counter-offensive measures are as easy as destroying all known elements of an enemy’s connecting cell structure and then calling it certain victory. I always wonder how long it takes after the credits roll for another organization of ships, all with better operating systems, to arrive and successfully destory us all. The Day After Tomorrow (2004) I understand the intention of co-writer/director Roland Emmerich (who also made Independence Day) was to portray the possible effects of global warming, but the resulting plot is so ridiculously exaggerated that to me it hurt the cause more than helped it. For Republicans who don’t believe in global warming or think it’s not as drastic as some make it out to be, this is appreciable as just another fantastic disaster movie with stunning effects and a mindless story. If you’d rather see a disaster movie that’s the gospel truth — literally — check out Left Behind: The Movie instead. Mr. Deeds (2002) The Democrat list features Frank Capra’s original, so I thought it fair to give Republicans the crappy remake. Aside from meaning it as allegory for how far Republican ideals have fallen, I also intend the selection as recognition of Adam Sandler’s political influence (see Eric Kohn’s argument on the matter). I don’t want to spoil the ending, which comes off as Capra by way of Reagan (who of course was a fan), but I will say its rather unfortunate how Deeds spends his money in this version. Death of a President (2006) Maybe you don’t like the idea of seeing your leader assassinated, but just think how the Bush haters feel when they see the consequences of his death. This is your movie, Republicans, because regardless of the reveal at the end, the faux documentary can still be used to support arguments in favor of the PATRIOT act and other such post-9/11 conservative agendas. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:01:10 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/4/2008 5:01:10 PMEarlier this week, I recommended 10 movies for Democrats to watch. So, to balance things out and hopefully show a lack of bias, I’ve now selected 10 recommendations for Republicans, too. This was actually the more difficult task, because there are so many classic films that display conservative values — and in the 1980s alone, I think there were about a billion films promoting relatively right-wing lifestyles and ideas. Therefore, I’ve limited my picks to the last two decades, except for one underrated gem that left me with quite an impression as a boy. The Dark Knight (2008) Some said Batman is Bush, others said Cheney, but either way this past summer’s superhero blockbuster resonated with certain conservatives who saw the film as something of an argument about — if not apology for — the actions of the current administration. Similarly, this summer’s Hancock and Iron Man have been read as being particularly relative to Republican politics. We Were Soldiers (2002) At first it was shocking to me that John McCain’s pick for best Vietnam movie is this overly dramatic disappointment from director Randall Wallace, which stars Mel Gibson. Then I realized that it’s one of the few Vietnam movies without a completely negative slant on the conflict. In fact, it portrays an official U.S. victory, making it somewhat optimistic compared to technically better films like Platoon and Apocalypse Now. Primary Colors (1998) This veiled depiction of Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign is hardly one-sided, and it’s certainly not intended to be a political attack in the way Oliver Stone’s upcoming W. is, but it’s the perhaps the closest thing Republicans have to a parallel to W., Nixon, Dick and other lampoons of GOP presidents. Commando (1985) Here it is, the one recommendation produced prior to the mid-90s, and with good reason. When I was a kid, this movie made me think guns and other weaponry were the coolest things in the world. I had the Commando action figure, which made G.I. Joe look like a total wimp, and I celebrated such accessories as the Bowie knife and the rocket launcher. While plenty of films from the ’80s feature lots of arms, and many of these movies are about rogue missions of vengeance and/or rescue, for some reason it was this specific movie that resonated most. Between my love for this and Red Dawn, I’m shocked that I didn’t grow up to be a member of either the NRA or the GOP. Juno (2007) This is an obvious choice due to all the Juno/Juneau jokes that came with the Bristol Palin baby news, but despite its relevancy to current events, the movie was already somewhat embraced by conservatives who saw Juno’s decision not to have an abortion as a slighty pro-life statement. Cheaper by the Dozen (2003) Another movie that the Palin clan reminds me of is this loose remake and its sequel, as well as the similarly remade giant-family comedy Yours, Mine and Ours. The worlds these films exist in have apparently never heard of abortion or birth control of any kind. Independence Day (1996) I doubt that in such a worldwide alien attack that the U.S. will have the best method of response, but anyway, this nationalistic sci-fi movie is a perfect fantasy for Republicans who think counter-offensive measures are as easy as destroying all known elements of an enemy’s connecting cell structure and then calling it certain victory. I always wonder how long it takes after the credits roll for another organization of ships, all with better operating systems, to arrive and successfully destory us all. The Day After Tomorrow (2004) I understand the intention of co-writer/director Roland Emmerich (who also made Independence Day) was to portray the possible effects of global warming, but the resulting plot is so ridiculously exaggerated that to me it hurt the cause more than helped it. For Republicans who don’t believe in global warming or think it’s not as drastic as some make it out to be, this is appreciable as just another fantastic disaster movie with stunning effects and a mindless story. If you’d rather see a disaster movie that’s the gospel truth — literally — check out Left Behind: The Movie instead. Mr. Deeds (2002) The Democrat list features Frank Capra’s original, so I thought it fair to give Republicans the crappy remake. Aside from meaning it as allegory for how far Republican ideals have fallen, I also intend the selection as recognition of Adam Sandler’s political influence (see Eric Kohn’s argument on the matter). I don’t want to spoil the ending, which comes off as Capra by way of Reagan (who of course was a fan), but I will say its rather unfortunate how Deeds spends his money in this version. Death of a President (2006) Maybe you don’t like the idea of seeing your leader assassinated, but just think how the Bush haters feel when they see the consequences of his death. This is your movie, Republicans, because regardless of the reveal at the end, the faux documentary can still be used to support arguments in favor of the PATRIOT act and other such post-9/11 conservative agendas. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/8/25/34329.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/25/2008 11:53:43 AM
Body: Charlie Wilson’s War tells the story of a Texas congressman and the impact he made on the Cold War and in the politics of Afghanistan. Tom Hanks portrays the Democrat congressman who guided money to Afghanistan that armed the mujahedeen and enabled them to win a war against the might of the Soviet Empire. The movie portrays his actions as decisive in the collapse of the Soviet system at the end of the 1980s and touches upon politicians’ short-sightedness in abandoning Afghanistan at the end of the conflict which allowed the radicals to take charge. Wilson is a six term congressman whose greatest achievement is that he has been re-elected five times. We quickly learn of his chaotic personal life. He is a drinker, spending most of the film with a glass in his hand, and is indiscreet in his sexual and social connections. He is enjoying some indiscreet connections when he spots Dan Rather on the news and hears the newscaster report on the Soviet force’s aggression against the largely defenceless Afghan people. Spurred on to learn more, partly out of his own interest but also because he has a soft spot for right wing Houston socialiate Joanne Herring, he flies to Pakistan where he sees the refugee camps and is spurred on to do something. When he confronts the head of CIA operations there he is disgusted to see that America’s efforts are tokenistic and have little to do with defending those fighting the war. He returns to Washington wanting to find a way to support the Afghan forces and help them to defend themselves against the Soviet army. Demanding to meet with somebody from the CIA back in the capital, he is disappointed when low-ranking outsider Gust Avrakotos appears in his office rather than a head of service. Avrakotos, played superbly by Philip Seymour Hoffman, explains the scale of funding needed to help the Afghans win their war and Wilson sets about getting it for them by striking deals with arms dealers and pressuring fellow committee members to back his proposals and appropriate the funding he needs. This film has a lot of potential for greatness but is too determined to sanitise Charlie Wilson. By making this as a mainstream movie, director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin tread an uncomfortable line between drama and humour, never subjecting either Wilson or his actions to proper scrutiny. After all, Wilson is a man who avoids democratic accountability by using the rules of the committee he sits on to funnel money and arms. Even if the filmmakers did not wish to devote the body of the film to the aftermath of his actions and the rise of the Taliban, Wilson’s methods are never scrutinised or debated. A more critical portrait could well have made this movie work more for me, not as a romp but as an examination of a man who, bored with his lifestyle, longs to do something of lasting significance and to give himself purpose. Who manages to use the Washington systems and persuade people with political objectives (the fall of communism) to back him in his more moral crusade to enable the Afghan people to stand up for themselves but who does not realise that his actions could create problems. The film goes some way towards addressing these themes but is never savage enough in its satire or in its portrayal of its lead. Charlie Wilson’s War can be very funny at points, particularly in the farcical doors opening sequence when Wilson juggles discussions with Avrakotos and his secretarial pool, “Jailbait”. It features slick dialogue and strong performances from most of its cast (I am still undecided whether I liked Julia Roberts as Joanne Herring). Compared to Primary Colors, a previous Mike Nichols political drama, this film feels too affectionate towards its main character and towards Washington. A bit more viciousness and a bit more bite could have transformed this film into something more consequential and more interesting instead of a film that is merely entertaining.
]]>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:53:43 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture8/25/2008 11:53:43 AMCharlie Wilson&rsquo;s War tells the story of a Texas congressman and the impact he made on the Cold War and in the politics of Afghanistan. Tom Hanks portrays the Democrat congressman who guided money to Afghanistan that armed the mujahedeen and enabled them to win a war against the might of the Soviet Empire. The movie portrays his actions as decisive in the collapse of the Soviet system at the end of the 1980s and touches upon politicians&rsquo; short-sightedness in abandoning Afghanistan at the end of the conflict which allowed the radicals to take charge. Wilson is a six term congressman whose greatest achievement is that he has been re-elected five times. We quickly learn of his chaotic personal life. He is a drinker, spending most of the film with a glass in his hand, and is indiscreet in his sexual and social connections. He is enjoying some indiscreet connections when he spots Dan Rather on the news and hears the newscaster report on the Soviet force&rsquo;s aggression against the largely defenceless Afghan people. Spurred on to learn more, partly out of his own interest but also because he has a soft spot for right wing Houston socialiate Joanne Herring, he flies to Pakistan where he sees the refugee camps and is spurred on to do something. When he confronts the head of CIA operations there he is disgusted to see that America&rsquo;s efforts are tokenistic and have little to do with defending those fighting the war. He returns to Washington wanting to find a way to support the Afghan forces and help them to defend themselves against the Soviet army. Demanding to meet with somebody from the CIA back in the capital, he is disappointed when low-ranking outsider Gust Avrakotos appears in his office rather than a head of service. Avrakotos, played superbly by Philip Seymour Hoffman, explains the scale of funding needed to help the Afghans win their war and Wilson sets about getting it for them by striking deals with arms dealers and pressuring fellow committee members to back his proposals and appropriate the funding he needs. This film has a lot of potential for greatness but is too determined to sanitise Charlie Wilson. By making this as a mainstream movie, director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin tread an uncomfortable line between drama and humour, never subjecting either Wilson or his actions to proper scrutiny. After all, Wilson is a man who avoids democratic accountability by using the rules of the committee he sits on to funnel money and arms. Even if the filmmakers did not wish to devote the body of the film to the aftermath of his actions and the rise of the Taliban, Wilson&rsquo;s methods are never scrutinised or debated. A more critical portrait could well have made this movie work more for me, not as a romp but as an examination of a man who, bored with his lifestyle, longs to do something of lasting significance and to give himself purpose. Who manages to use the Washington systems and persuade people with political objectives (the fall of communism) to back him in his more moral crusade to enable the Afghan people to stand up for themselves but who does not realise that his actions could create problems. The film goes some way towards addressing these themes but is never savage enough in its satire or in its portrayal of its lead. Charlie Wilson&rsquo;s War can be very funny at points, particularly in the farcical doors opening sequence when Wilson juggles discussions with Avrakotos and his secretarial pool, &ldquo;Jailbait&rdquo;. It features slick dialogue and strong performances from most of its cast (I am still undecided whether I liked Julia Roberts as Joanne Herring). Compared to Primary Colors, a previous Mike Nichols political drama, this film feels too affectionate towards its main character and towards Washington. A bit more viciousness and a bit more bite could have transformed this film into something more consequential and more interesting instead of a film that is merely entertaining. http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/8/23/34302.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/23/2008 8:47:49 PM
Body: There are occassions when you look at the cast list, look at the crew and look at the source material for a film and are forced to ponder how so many promising elements turn into a turkey. Based on Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel that was to Louisiana Governor Huey P. Long what Primary Colors was to Bill Clinton, the film tells the story of a fiery, populist politician (Sean Penn) who takes on the oil industry. We see the events from the perspective of Jack Burden (Jude Law), a newspaper writer who is drawn into Willie Stark's campaign for Governor and subsequently his administration. Stark, who was based upon Governor Long, is urged to run by a political schemer named Tiny Duffy who is trying to use Stark to get his own candidate elected Governor. When Burden reveals to Stark that Tiny is using him, the politician responds with a verbal tirade at his next stump stop against the fat cats - a theme that resonates with the crowd. Sean Penn's Stark is a curious beast that never really settles for me. I can admire the way he physically apes Long when giving speeches, most noticeable in the way he moves his hands as he talks, but his personality feels indistinct. It is almost as if he had decided that Stark is a morally ambigious character and so should be "grey". Not a mixture of motives, not a mixture of actions - just soft, "grey" ambiguity. Now, I have nothing against ambiguity in and of itself in a character's motivations if we are presented with a character and asked to make judgements. However, Zaillian's script never lets us see Stark clearly, keeping him at ambigious middle-distance and shrowding the impeachment proceedings in mystery. In doing so it becomes ambigious as to whether those charges, whatever they are, are trumped up or based on evidence of some kind. We never know Stark so how can we judge him? We also cannot share in Burden's disillusionment concerning Stark when we never get a feel for what attracts Burden to him in the first place. More ambiguity. Is it that he is drawn to the underdog? Does he respect Stark's resume? Does he want to undermine his newspaper's line on the election? The principal problem with Burden is that he simply is not a likeable or empathic character. From the opening frame of this film he is cold and unhappy. We never really understand the hopes and aspirations of the character, or why he takes some very dramatic decisions. Clearly there is a reason he is drawn to Stark but by not letting us share Burden's journey, it is hard not to be baffled by one major decision the character takes. Perhaps the film's broken narrative structure is also to blame. We do not follow the relationship between Burden and Stark as it happens but we begin near the end of the narrative. A more conventional chronological timeline may have been less flashy but it would have made the story and the characters more accessible. The film attempts to guide us emotionally through its style but the music is too brash and the visual design tries far too hard to be eye-catching. Both the music and art design end up being counter-productive, being distracting rather than aiding the telling of the story. For instance, in one scene the production suddenly switches from colour to black and white and when blood appears it is the sole colour on the screen. A nice effect certainly, but it is very reminiscent of a scene in Schindler's List (which Zaillian also scripted) and feels like it was only shot that way to show off the effect. Zaillian forgets that design should always be in service of the story, clumsily pulling the focus away from the actors and towards the direction. All the King's Men is a disenaging and disappointing work that fails to make the most of its elements. Given its cast, which contains the likes of Anthony Hopkins and Kate Winslet, and the pedigree of its crew it is astonishing how this picture could end up falling so wide of the mark. This is a film that never decides what it wants to say or why its messages, whatever they are meant to be, are relevant to today's audience. It is clear that the makers have a love of the original text, the excruciating voice-overs culled and stitched together from the novel are evidence of an admiration for Warren's poetic prose, but the film needed to go further to make a connection from the politicking of the mid-20th century to that of the start of the 21st century. Zaillian himself recognises this problem, explaining that this was the reason he moved the setting of the story from 1930s Louisiana to the 1950s. Yet in terms of campaigning style there is little difference between the two. The original novel's success was in its daring examination of the political machine at a time when we lacked cynicism. What could have been a biting satire with relevance to today's politics feels like a record of a bygone age and a missed opportunity.
]]>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:47:49 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture8/23/2008 8:47:49 PMThere are occassions when you look at the cast list, look at the crew and look at the source material for a film and are forced to ponder how so many promising elements turn into a turkey. Based on Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel that was to Louisiana Governor Huey P. Long what Primary Colors was to Bill Clinton, the film tells the story of a fiery, populist politician (Sean Penn) who takes on the oil industry. We see the events from the perspective of Jack Burden (Jude Law), a newspaper writer who is drawn into Willie Stark's campaign for Governor and subsequently his administration. Stark, who was based upon Governor Long, is urged to run by a political schemer named Tiny Duffy who is trying to use Stark to get his own candidate elected Governor. When Burden reveals to Stark that Tiny is using him, the politician responds with a verbal tirade at his next stump stop against the fat cats - a theme that resonates with the crowd. Sean Penn's Stark is a curious beast that never really settles for me. I can admire the way he physically apes Long when giving speeches, most noticeable in the way he moves his hands as he talks, but his personality feels indistinct. It is almost as if he had decided that Stark is a morally ambigious character and so should be "grey". Not a mixture of motives, not a mixture of actions - just soft, "grey" ambiguity. Now, I have nothing against ambiguity in and of itself in a character's motivations if we are presented with a character and asked to make judgements. However, Zaillian's script never lets us see Stark clearly, keeping him at ambigious middle-distance and shrowding the impeachment proceedings in mystery. In doing so it becomes ambigious as to whether those charges, whatever they are, are trumped up or based on evidence of some kind. We never know Stark so how can we judge him? We also cannot share in Burden's disillusionment concerning Stark when we never get a feel for what attracts Burden to him in the first place. More ambiguity. Is it that he is drawn to the underdog? Does he respect Stark's resume? Does he want to undermine his newspaper's line on the election? The principal problem with Burden is that he simply is not a likeable or empathic character. From the opening frame of this film he is cold and unhappy. We never really understand the hopes and aspirations of the character, or why he takes some very dramatic decisions. Clearly there is a reason he is drawn to Stark but by not letting us share Burden's journey, it is hard not to be baffled by one major decision the character takes. Perhaps the film's broken narrative structure is also to blame. We do not follow the relationship between Burden and Stark as it happens but we begin near the end of the narrative. A more conventional chronological timeline may have been less flashy but it would have made the story and the characters more accessible. The film attempts to guide us emotionally through its style but the music is too brash and the visual design tries far too hard to be eye-catching. Both the music and art design end up being counter-productive, being distracting rather than aiding the telling of the story. For instance, in one scene the production suddenly switches from colour to black and white and when blood appears it is the sole colour on the screen. A nice effect certainly, but it is very reminiscent of a scene in Schindler's List (which Zaillian also scripted) and feels like it was only shot that way to show off the effect. Zaillian forgets that design should always be in service of the story, clumsily pulling the focus away from the actors and towards the direction. All the King's Men is a disenaging and disappointing work that fails to make the most of its elements. Given its cast, which contains the likes of Anthony Hopkins and Kate Winslet, and the pedigree of its crew it is astonishing how this picture could end up falling so wide of the mark. This is a film that never decides what it wants to say or why its messages, whatever they are meant to be, are relevant to today's audience. It is clear that the makers have a love of the original text, the excruciating voice-overs culled and stitched together from the novel are evidence of an admiration for Warren's poetic prose, but the film needed to go further to make a connection from the politicking of the mid-20th century to that of the start of the 21st century. Zaillian himself recognises this problem, explaining that this was the reason he moved the setting of the story from 1930s Louisiana to the 1950s. Yet in terms of campaigning style there is little difference between the two. The original novel's success was in its daring examination of the political machine at a time when we lacked cynicism. What could have been a biting satire with relevance to today's politics feels like a record of a bygone age and a missed opportunity. http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/7/26/33115.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 7/26/2008 4:03:57 PM
Body: Spoilers follow. City Hall would be an average film if it were not lifted by the sheer quality of its star-powered performances. A story about disillusionment and political idealism, its tone betrays a cynical heart. The story is set around the accidental shooting of a young African American child who is caught in the crossfire between a cop and a member of the Mafia. John Cusack plays the idealistic aide to the mayor who begins to look into the affair and discovers that there is more to it than meets the eye. Cusack's performance is typical of his strengths as an actor - he draws us in and manages to convey the transition between naive idealism and more worldly understanding. However he is undersold by a script that moves too quickly - giving us too little time to understand and appreciate the causes behind it. We do not see the mental process leading to that enormous change, not because Cusack is not conveying it but because the script does not give opportunity to show it. Whilst I quibble about pacing however, the plot here is exciting and the dialogue is generally excellent. The scenes with the judge and Pacino are particular highlights that spark beautifully - I guess that's what happens when you combine fine actors with rich dialogue. Pacino plays John Pappas well, selling him both as a politician and a more complex, grey human being. His presence on this film is enormous and he looms over any scene he is in. Yet it is so large that we know we will only ever be led back to his door. The plot makes no attempt to mask this and no other figure of a similar stature is ever established. The inevitability of the reveal is one of the weakest aspects of this film although the quality of the confrontation at least ensures that it satisfies on some levels. Bridget Fonda appears as Marybeth Cogan, who investigates this case along with Cusack's character. Her performance is good and the scene between her and Cusack in the diner struck me as one of this highlights of this film. The emotions feel right and the ending stung just about enough to satisfy. What a shame that the film ruins her exit by reuniting them at the end and resolving their differences. It was too obvious and too smooth. It is this smoothness and this predictability that lets the film down in the end. It never surprises because it feels familiar. I wanted to see more of the shades of grey that Pacino talks about. I wished that there had been a few more twists in the tale, that it had surprised me more. That said, do not write City Hall off because of these failings. What it does well, it does very well. It does not have the satirical content of Wag the Dog (released a year later) or Primary Colors (two years after), nor is it a perfect political thriller (for that see the excellent BBC drama State of Play, soon to be remade into a movie) but it is cast well, suitably dramatic and features some excellent performances.
]]>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:03:57 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture7/26/2008 4:03:57 PMSpoilers follow. City Hall would be an average film if it were not lifted by the sheer quality of its star-powered performances. A story about disillusionment and political idealism, its tone betrays a cynical heart. The story is set around the accidental shooting of a young African American child who is caught in the crossfire between a cop and a member of the Mafia. John Cusack plays the idealistic aide to the mayor who begins to look into the affair and discovers that there is more to it than meets the eye. Cusack's performance is typical of his strengths as an actor - he draws us in and manages to convey the transition between naive idealism and more worldly understanding. However he is undersold by a script that moves too quickly - giving us too little time to understand and appreciate the causes behind it. We do not see the mental process leading to that enormous change, not because Cusack is not conveying it but because the script does not give opportunity to show it. Whilst I quibble about pacing however, the plot here is exciting and the dialogue is generally excellent. The scenes with the judge and Pacino are particular highlights that spark beautifully - I guess that's what happens when you combine fine actors with rich dialogue. Pacino plays John Pappas well, selling him both as a politician and a more complex, grey human being. His presence on this film is enormous and he looms over any scene he is in. Yet it is so large that we know we will only ever be led back to his door. The plot makes no attempt to mask this and no other figure of a similar stature is ever established. The inevitability of the reveal is one of the weakest aspects of this film although the quality of the confrontation at least ensures that it satisfies on some levels. Bridget Fonda appears as Marybeth Cogan, who investigates this case along with Cusack's character. Her performance is good and the scene between her and Cusack in the diner struck me as one of this highlights of this film. The emotions feel right and the ending stung just about enough to satisfy. What a shame that the film ruins her exit by reuniting them at the end and resolving their differences. It was too obvious and too smooth. It is this smoothness and this predictability that lets the film down in the end. It never surprises because it feels familiar. I wanted to see more of the shades of grey that Pacino talks about. I wished that there had been a few more twists in the tale, that it had surprised me more. That said, do not write City Hall off because of these failings. What it does well, it does very well. It does not have the satirical content of Wag the Dog (released a year later) or Primary Colors (two years after), nor is it a perfect political thriller (for that see the excellent BBC drama State of Play, soon to be remade into a movie) but it is cast well, suitably dramatic and features some excellent performances. http://www.spout.com/blogs/bigjefflebowski/archive/2008/1/2/23443.aspx Post By: BigJeffLebowski
Post To: BigJeffLebowski Blog
Post Date: 1/2/2008 4:59:55 PM
Body: For better or for worse, Charlie Wilson's War plays pretty much exactly like one would expect a film written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by Mike Nichols would. It's talky, snarky, ever so slightly rigid, but far too much fun to let those qualities be to its detriment.As Charlie Wilson, a boozing, womanizing Texas congressman, Tom Hanks brings his trademark charm to the proceedings, but thankfully leaves most of his sentimentality at home. After visiting Afghanistan as a favor to political lobbyist and sometime paramour Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), Wilson teams with Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman, in top form) a CIA agent ecstatic to finally drum up some support for the Afghani cause.Sorkin is very much at home writing about what goes on backstage in American politics (and the film does tend to drown its audience in facts, figures, and jargon that it is presumptuous to assume we all understand with equal aplomb), but it is what Nichols and his cast bring to the screenplay that elevates Charlie Wilson's War to the level of great cinema. Sorkin's dialogue is always sharp, but tends to become cluttered; Nichols directs his actors to spit it out in quick, rapid fire bursts, creating a tone not unlike the screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s. Granted, the topics are a little headier, but even if some of the specifics of the governmental politics overshoot some viewers' heads, the film wisely focuses on the personal politics of those involved. (One can't help but be reminded of Nichols' similar approach to Primary Colors, his fictionalized account of the Clinton campaign.)Though Tom Hanks may occasionally seem to be too much of the everyman to portray a character of Wilson's calibre, this actually works for the film. By playing it straight -- and subtle -- the eccentricities of Wilson's circumjacent compatriots become more pronounced without any needless histrionics from the ensemble. Julia Roberts is acceptable, but ignites little chemistry with Hanks. Amy Adams, on the other hand, begins to reestablish some of the credibility that she's lost due to basically every role she's taken since being nominated for Junebug. Ned Beatty's is a small role, but his performance is superb.Nonetheless -- and unsurprisingly -- the film belongs to Philip Seymour Hoffman. Is there a better actor working today? Every part he has played has been infused with greatness, and this ranks among his best and funniest. The film's best lines go to him, not necessarily because it was written that way, but because Hoffman is an incredibly smart actor who can turn his most mundane lines into gold through impeccable timing and delivery. He brings out the best in his costars (Hanks' scenes with Hoffman are his best) and it would be an unforgivable oversight if the Academy doesn't nominate him for at least one of his several brilliant performances this year.The film is not without its flaws -- some of the backstory could stand to be elaborated upon, and much of the third act feels somewhat abrupt -- but neither was Charlie Wilson. And just as the film instructs us to do for the man himself, I am willing to overlook the few things it does wrong in favor of the many things it does right.
]]>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:59:55 GMTBigJeffLebowskiBigJeffLebowski Blog1/2/2008 4:59:55 PMFor better or for worse, Charlie Wilson&#39;s War plays pretty much exactly like one would expect a film written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by Mike Nichols would. It&#39;s talky, snarky, ever so slightly rigid, but far too much fun to let those qualities be to its detriment.As Charlie Wilson, a boozing, womanizing Texas congressman, Tom Hanks brings his trademark charm to the proceedings, but thankfully leaves most of his sentimentality at home. After visiting Afghanistan as a favor to political lobbyist and sometime paramour Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), Wilson teams with Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman, in top form) a CIA agent ecstatic to finally drum up some support for the Afghani cause.Sorkin is very much at home writing about what goes on backstage in American politics (and the film does tend to drown its audience in facts, figures, and jargon that it is presumptuous to assume we all understand with equal aplomb), but it is what Nichols and his cast bring to the screenplay that elevates Charlie Wilson&#39;s War to the level of great cinema. Sorkin&#39;s dialogue is always sharp, but tends to become cluttered; Nichols directs his actors to spit it out in quick, rapid fire bursts, creating a tone not unlike the screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s. Granted, the topics are a little headier, but even if some of the specifics of the governmental politics overshoot some viewers&#39; heads, the film wisely focuses on the personal politics of those involved. (One can&#39;t help but be reminded of Nichols&#39; similar approach to Primary Colors, his fictionalized account of the Clinton campaign.)Though Tom Hanks may occasionally seem to be too much of the everyman to portray a character of Wilson&#39;s calibre, this actually works for the film. By playing it straight -- and subtle -- the eccentricities of Wilson&#39;s circumjacent compatriots become more pronounced without any needless histrionics from the ensemble. Julia Roberts is acceptable, but ignites little chemistry with Hanks. Amy Adams, on the other hand, begins to reestablish some of the credibility that she&#39;s lost due to basically every role she&#39;s taken since being nominated for Junebug. Ned Beatty&#39;s is a small role, but his performance is superb.Nonetheless -- and unsurprisingly -- the film belongs to Philip Seymour Hoffman. Is there a better actor working today? Every part he has played has been infused with greatness, and this ranks among his best and funniest. The film&#39;s best lines go to him, not necessarily because it was written that way, but because Hoffman is an incredibly smart actor who can turn his most mundane lines into gold through impeccable timing and delivery. He brings out the best in his costars (Hanks&#39; scenes with Hoffman are his best) and it would be an unforgivable oversight if the Academy doesn&#39;t nominate him for at least one of his several brilliant performances this year.The film is not without its flaws -- some of the backstory could stand to be elaborated upon, and much of the third act feels somewhat abrupt -- but neither was Charlie Wilson. And just as the film instructs us to do for the man himself, I am willing to overlook the few things it does wrong in favor of the many things it does right. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/satire/MemberTagFilms.aspxsatire
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 120

]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:25 GMT17055120Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politics/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitics
Number of films tagged: 698

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 194

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT69854194Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/election/MemberTagFilms.aspxelection
Number of films tagged: 224

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 37

]]>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:03:04 GMT2241937Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/media/MemberTagFilms.aspxmedia
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 28

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:08:40 GMT2121828Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scandal/MemberTagFilms.aspxscandal
Number of films tagged: 540

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 30

]]>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:14:49 GMT5401630Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bill/MemberTagFilms.aspxbill
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 13

]]>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:49:33 GMT91213Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/husbandandwife/MemberTagFilms.aspxhusbandandwife
Number of films tagged: 767

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 23

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT7671023Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disillusionment/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisillusionment
Number of films tagged: 265

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 6

]]>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:05:23 GMT26556Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/clinton/MemberTagFilms.aspxclinton
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 10

]]>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:37:42 GMT9410Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/governor/MemberTagFilms.aspxgovernor
Number of films tagged: 189

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:01:54 GMT18944Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/candidate/MemberTagFilms.aspxcandidate
Number of films tagged: 137

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:07:10 GMT13722Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/honor-integrity/MemberTagFilms.aspxhonor-integrity
Number of films tagged: 59

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT5922Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politicalcampaign/MemberTagFilms.aspxpoliticalcampaign
Number of films tagged: 142

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:03:04 GMT14211Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/philandering/MemberTagFilms.aspxphilandering
Number of films tagged: 119

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:01:42 GMT11900Tag