Ides Of March: Clooney/Gosling Film

Cafe Society
1

We just saw Ides Of March, the new George Clooney film with Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Paul Giamatti and a pretty good cast of other supporting actors.

It was a decent, but not great, film about behind the scenes of a political campaign - specifically about a crucial election among future Democratic front runners. (Republicans take note - the fact that it is about Democrats will not affect your liking or disliking the film; this could be about any campaign.)

There were some interesting insights to the campaign process, although much of it is well known; deals made/not made, using the press/being used by the press, working poll numbers to your advantage/opponents disadvantage.

The actual storyline has to do with a scandal - the who, the why and what happens. For me, that was the problem. The scandal was was pretty unoriginal and the outcome was of mild interest. This was a script that could have used just a couple more re-writes. Without going into specifics, there were lots more people involved directly or indirectly with this scandal, but you never really got to know how much they knew or how they reacted on a personal level. It seemed like lots of the story happened off screen, and you only get to see the tip of the iceberg.

I was one who liked Ryan Gosling in “Drive” and the film’s slow pace (although from that thread, many hated the film for that very reason), but I am beginning to think maybe Ryan Gosling does use just a tad too much Valium.

That said, it was a decent film about behind the scenes of a political campaign - but for me at least, it just lacked the urgency and fast-pacing of a “thriller”. Maybe Ryan should buy some uppers from Matt Damon.

2

I liked it. Not one of the best films ever, but I thought it was among the best I’ve seen all year, along with Drive and The Devil’s Double. But then, I have a gigantic man-crush on Clooney and love political thrillers, so take that for what it’s worth.

3

Looking forward to seeing this one. George Clooney. Most men either want to have sex with him or they want to be him. The lucky bastard! :slight_smile:

4

I saw it yesterday as a double-feature with Take Shelter (now THERE’S a GREAT movie!) and pretty much agree with you, though I came out of it almost hating it. I’ve calmed down since and would be willing to see it again. I think. The acting was all excellent, beyond reproach. The direction, editing, music, cinematography, all top notch. That alone makes it worthwhile. But, all that talent and…

Yeah, no kidding.

(WARNING: this is a uberspoiler-filled rant, but rant I must.)

[spoiler]The scandal was…having sex with a dimbulb intern? Who then gets pregnant, has an abortion, and commits suicide? Are you fucking kidding me? That’s IT? I kept looking around for the real plot to reveal itself.

There are a lot of reasons I walked out almost angry.

In the first place, the movie is a right-winger’s dream. They’re gonna loooove this film. They won’t go see it because it’s a George Clooney film, but they should if they want to wallow and rejoice in liberal fuckups. I don’t like it when right-wingers are happy about anything, let alone a movie made by a well-known liberal. A movie that makes Democrats look bad. A movie that makes women look bad. A movie that makes blacks look bad.

Not that some or any of those things are off-limits in movies (you’re talking to someone whose favorite film of the year so far is Attack The Block, which starts with a group of inner city youths mugging a woman) but at least make the story and characters and situations interesting. [/irrational bias]

Second, speaking of, the scenario was boring as hell to me. The intern was boring, how the affair happened was boring. How she handled her situation was boring. How people reacted to it and her was boring. The setup, reveal and aftermath was boring. Jesus! I didn’t know anything about the storyline before going in and I was shocked to my socks at how boring the scandal was. It’s 2011, and the characters all acted as if it were 1998. Or 1908.

Not that we should be blase about horny politicians who abuse their power and think with their dicks, but it really did seem as if these people were living in the past. They’d never heard of condoms or birth control. They’d never heard of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. They’d never learned any kind of lesson from other politician’s past mistakes. I was just awestruck at how quaint and mundane the scandal was. That is, prior to her committing suicide, although that only added yet another layer of BORING CLICHE on the pile.

Third, there were only 3 female characters in the movie and they were all seriously underwritten: the dimbulb intern, the conniving reporter, and the loving and unsuspecting wife who stands by her man. Boring. I don’t have to have women in all my movies (I love Glenngarry Glen Ross for instance) but if there are women, please at least make them interesting and not a cliched type.

And not to mention the only major black character in the movie is an asshole, conniving politician who’s willing to give voting favors in exchange for the promise of a cabinet post. Not that it’s not a viable scenario, but a little balance, please. Any other blacks live in these people’s world? I guess not.

Oh I forgot the other big so-called “scandal” in the movie. Gosling’s character meets with the campaign manager of the opponent and that’s supposed to be a BIG SCANDAL too. WTF? Why? I’ll bet these people know each other and run in each other’s worlds all the time. They’re all Democrats and they’re all seasoned campaign workers. Plus it’s not a Presidential election they’re working on, it’s a frickin’ Primary!

So in the movie, they meet for a drink. Giamatti tries to talk Gosling into jumping ship and working for him, Gosling says no, and that’s it. So fucking what?? Both candidates are Democrats who are probably very close in policy views. Gosling is loyal to Clooney’s character, but it’s not like he’d have to get his brains sucked out if he did go to work for the other candidate. Anyway, it’s all talk. Boring talk. Come to work for us, we’re going to win. No. Ok. Yet, yet, later in the movie, the threat of the meeting becoming public is treated like a “IT’LL RUIN ME!!! IT’LL RUIN BOTH OF US!!!IF THIS GETS OUT!!!” crisis. What? Why? I definitely missed something somewhere. That one’s even more boring than the intern crisis.

If it weren’t for Clooney, and Gosling, Giamatti and Hoffman, and the interesting insights into how a campaign is run, I’d probably really hate this movie. Because of them, I can’t condemn it. I sure can roll my eyes a lot though. [/spoiler]

Anyway, everyone should go see Take Shelter after they’ve had their Clooney fix.

5

I saw it this afternoon, and I have to say that the OP’s review is spot-on. The whole movie felt like something interesting was just about to happen…but it never did.

I was impressed with myself for having figured out the movie’s twist – until I realized that there really wasn’t a twist. Here’s what I thought was going on:[spoiler]The intern never slept with the Governor. It was all an elaborate plot by the opposition (Paul Giamatti) to either lure Ryan Gosling to the other campaign, or create some kind of scandal. The intern was in on the plot the whole time, and her seduction of Gosling was just one element. I thought the big final confrontation would be when, after the scandal got out that campaign money had been used to pay for the intern’s abortion, destroying the campaign, the Governor would confront Gosling and tell him that he never slept with the intern. Then we’d see Giamatti celebrating with his winning candidate.

I think the big central hole in the movie was Clooney’s good guy image. There was not one moment when I thought he was stupid or reckless enough to risk both his marriage and campaign on something so stupid. Maybe because Clooney directed the movie, he couldn’t create the necessary feeling of disgust toward himself.[/spoiler]

6

The movie was never about the scandal (or scandals). That’s why they were pretty run of the mill as far as political scandals are concerned.

The real story to me was the wide eyed idealist who “didn’t need to play dirty” because he’s “got Morris!”. When Gosling’s character made a stupid mistake and things went bad, he turned straight to throwing everyone he could under the bus. Seemed to me by the end, he was more corrupt than any of the other characters.

The holier than thou speech he gave to the intern was almost quoted back to him by P.S. Hoffman later in the movie.

Not knowing much about any of the political process was interesting for me to watch, but yeah, I was also waiting for something to happen the whole movie. I was a whole lotta WTF?? until my movie partner and I talked about it more at home.

I thought it was pretty good. And I hated Drive. And I’m a big Clooney/Gosling/Hoffman fan as well.

(And I really want to see Take Shelter, although it will probably never make it to my podunk town. Boo!)

Anyway, there’s my few pennies worth :slight_smile:

7

Now that a few people have seen it as well, allow me to add to Equipoise’s rant:

$900?! That was it?! She calls the Governor to give her $900 so she can pay for an abortion?! Really? Ryan Gosling didn’t have that in his wallet? The girl didn’t have it in her account? Her father is the head of the DNC, so I assume she is not exactly poor. They waste 15 minutes of the film trying to scrape together a few hundred bucks? Geez - most political campaigns can spend that on pizza for the volunteers and not blink an eye.
This is why I said this script needed a serious re-write. Of all the scandals that could have been really original, they have to opt for the most banal blonde intern one-night-stand? Yawn. Boring. Don’t give a fuck. And yet, that was the “thriller” sub-plot.
They wasted the Philip Seymour Hoffman character - he could have really done some nasty work with that scandal. They missed the wife who could have really turned into a bitch or gone off in a different direction and taken care of the intern to show how she would have been a wild-ass First Lady. They could have shown Clooney step up, or turn into a real slime ball. They could have shown intern’s dad come down hard on Clooney.
But no.
This scandal wouldn’t have made page 6 in the New York Times for more than a day.

8

[spoiler]Yeah, I thought it was pretty ridiculous for NO one to have that kind of money on hand. Hell, I’m broke and I could come up with that. I thought SOMETHING was going to be made of Gosling borrowing it from petty cash… but no.

But back to my thoughts on the movie, the reason none of the other characters did any of the nasty things they could have was to contrast Goslings fall from his “do the right thing” attitude to complete corruption.[/spoiler]
I think the big problem was that the movie was marketed as a political thriller. That’s what I was expecting going in. Except it wasn’t.

Just wondering. Are the spoiler tags still necessary?

9

With this and your earlier excellent post you’ve gotten me to see the movie in a different way. I may go back and re-visit it…(warning, irrational political rant ahead)

…after the next election when President Obama is safely into his 2nd term. If that doesn’t happen, I will despise Clooney, Michael Moore, Wonkette and all other “Progressives” with the heat of a thousand suns. Wait, I already do, which is terrible since Clooney is one of my favorite people on the planet. He used to be, anyway. As far as I’m concerned, they all might as well just join the damn Tea Party, since they’re all working toward the same goal of making him a one-term president, and installing another right-winger. Fuck them all, far left and far right, all of them.

Yeah, a while longer please. It’s only been 2 days since it opened.

10

Well thanks for saying so! I love reading the boards here but the thought of posting is intimidating as hell. I feel like I’ve added something helpful now :wink:

(I’m terrified of even OPENING Great Debates :stuck_out_tongue: )

11

You definitely have. I can see it as a story of disillusionment and the fall of an idealist into corruption. Right now it’s just too close the an election I care very deeply about, and I feel too betrayed by “liberals” who truck with teabaggers for me to be objective.

Oh god, you and me both. I’ll peek in every now and then but quickly scurry (or run screaming) away. It’s way above my intelligence and debate level. And it always amazes me that such smart people who must live amazingly busy lives doing smart people things have TIME for all that debate too! Wears me out just thinking about it, let alone reading it, let alone trying to research and write anything, and I have no life at all outside of banal work and going to movies.

12

Saw the movie last night, and I echo most of the comments here (but I didn’t dislike it as passionately as Equi). The acting and dialogue I thought were particularly strong. But the story was underwhelming.

13

I thought that the scandal was minor intentionally.


The scandal was minor and easily dodged, so the candidate accepted the blackmail deal because he wanted to. He knew it was the only way he wins the primary and the scandal was the excuse he needed to do the wrong thing. Ryan Gosling’s character was a mirror of Clooney at that point in the film, they were both cocky with tarnished idealism and they jumped off the cliff together.

14

I liked the movie a whole lot. As several people have said, the scandal itself was a McGuffin – the movie was about the choices the Ryan Gosling character made, and the implications that those choices had for him and for others. After he told the intern “One mistake and you’re done in this biz,” we see how he handles the fallout from his own mistake.

Not a huge fan of Ryan Gosling – he’s a little too bland/blank for my taste – but I thought it was a really good movie.

15

Fair enough…and yes, the evolution of the Ryan Gosling character was one of the stronger elements of the film that, as mentioned, I liked but didn’t think was “great”.

But come on, even as a McGuffin, that was a pretty lame scandal.
Just off the top of my head I could come up with a few better:

  • an affair with a Gay male intern, proving the candidate really is Gay as well.
  • a brother-in-law who may or may not be involved with a terrorist organization that donated funds to the campaign, and the candidate is aware of it.
  • the candidate is guilty of a past murder.

The point is, you could still show Ryan’s character evolve when he finds out, but at least the scandal itself would be enough to torpedo the election if it got out. It would take some major work to deal with a major scandal (and be a more exciting “thriller”), whereas the scandal that they used is so old hat, that a good PR person could hide it/spin it in a matter of hours.

16

In none of those cases would the press secretary be sleeping with the intern.

Seriously? You don’t think an underage intern – it’s not clear whether she’s 20 yet or not, in any case she’s really young – getting an abortion would torpedo presidential aspirations? John Edwards might disagree with you, given that his lover was an adult who went ahead and had the child and it did him in permanently.

I understand why the people who didn’t like the film didn’t – I was looking at it on a very intimate scale of what people say vs. what people do, and I was absorbed. I loved the way they handled the public/private thing, as we see in that scene where RG and PSH are talking backstage, with that huge flag behind them, as GC is discussing same-sex marriage with the young woman in the “town meeting” (itself an immensely artificial construct) out front.

17

Saw it tonight and it was… meh. I agree with most of the criticisms already made here. Just never really took off, and the scandal seemed minor compared to the fuss made over it. The movie was also just so damned predictable. I saw it with my son, 14, who’s as big a political junkie as me. At least five times during the movie we whispered to each other, “I bet next there’s gonna be…” and much to our disappointment, we were right.

Every. Damn. Time.

18

Yeah, but even not having seen it, I feel like scandals that are in movies should be bigger than real life, just like everything else. Most movie characters would totally effed up if there were held to real life standards.