Oh hello, my name is Jerzy.
I recently watched Ides of March as I heard many good things about it and because a friend's brothers were in it.
As a former campaign manager and protege of old timers, I was immediately struck by the fact that this was a film aiming to accurately recreate scenes found in this modern political era. I found the beginning scenes, the debate tech prep, where Gosling is reading off Clooney's actual speech quite entertaining because atheism is the third rail of politics and when, later in the film, it flashes to Clooney actually invecting against religion it closes the loop that this is a film criticizing politics as it is. I had gone into this film thinking it would be some sort of poli-glamour type film due to the actors involved (Ryan Gosling especially) and was pleasantly surprised when it turned out altogether differently.
My critiques of this movies are as such. For many reasons, the "campaign" was actually more like a congressional campaign based on my technical reading of the characters, candidate, staff, location shots and otherwise. I have a feeling that the original book, pre-adaptation, was for a lower office. For example, Ryan Gosling's character is a communications guy and hence should not be asked for "hard numbers" about anything. Most of all, presidential candidates do not sit in staff meetings and any manager who lets a candidate mingle freely with the staff deserves to have an impregnated intern causing problems.
Aside from this, I found this movie incredibly heartwarming as the good guy manager, cut down whilst in the middle of solving an incredibly personal problem for the candidate on the hush hush, flips the script on the heartless actions of his boss and candidate to win the day. Having been through a number of these moments with candidates and mentors, this was a fantasy fulfillment moment for me.
Fin
1 comment:
Good assessment, Jerzy. I had many of the same thoughts while watching it. The campaign setting was very lifelike, if better suited, as you point out, for a lower-office campaign.
One plot element that frustrated me was the outsized significance placed on one senator's endorsement for locking up a state's vote. In the early 1900s, sure - back when delegates were tied to political players. The idea, though, that a senator could clinch a modern primary win with his endorsement seems hollow. This senator was African American so perhaps they could have played up the idea that he had a national profile as a leader in that community, but they really just depicted him as a hack. Also, Ohio's Democratic primary electorate isn't overwhelming black to begin with.
I noted one geographic oddity, too: a Democratic presidential primary campaign's Ohio headquarters is in...Cincinnati? In the far southeast corner of the state? The least Democratic of the state's large cities and metro areas?
Post a Comment