To my mind George Clooney has established himself not only as a charismatic leading man but also as one of the most interesting directors working out of Hollywood today. That's why I had such high hopes for his latest effort,
The Ides of March. On a number of levels, this is first-rate entertainment, with excellent performances across the board (Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood, as well as Clooney in essentially a supporting role), and a tightly told story with a solid moral lesson at its core. Its the story of a presidential primary campaign and the compromises necessary (both personal and professional) to achieve the goal of electoral victory. Unfortunately most of the film's potential
oomph (whether artistic or political) is largely deflated by unnecessary telegraphing of virtually every twist that occurs. Even worse than that (and I suspect this has its roots in the story's origin as a play-- where foreshadowing tragedy is practically an imperative), the early scenes define a clear consensus on the dynamics of politics which makes it impossible to imagine that the eventual fall is a surprise-- or of any real consequence-- to the characters in whose fate the audience is expected to invest our sympathies. One gets the feeling that this reflects Clooney's own sense that the battle for ethics in politics was long ago lost. Maybe the famous speech delivered by Ed Murrow (used as a framing device in Clooney's
Good Night and Good Luck) represented a last chance to resist the turn towards cynicism; but we know that didn't happen, and the result is that the outcome of a film like
The Ides of March sadly elicits little more than a shrug.
No comments:
Post a Comment