web
counter
 

The Ides of March Review: What Do We Do Now?

By Daniel Carlson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (27)



The-Ides-of-March-review.jpg

The source material for The Ides of March traces its roots to the 2004 election, but co-writer and director George Clooney has made a movie very much about life in 2011, with the shine off the presidential apple and people on both sides of the aisle wising up to the awful truth of political compromise. It was just a few years ago that he poured his heart into Good Night, and Good Luck, a gorgeous and searing indictment of small-minded politics that felt like a call to something greater in all of us. Yet The Ides of March is a much darker film, a sad and quiet reflection on the cost of doing business in a world guided by men willing to kill each other for the chance to lead whoever’s left. Clooney spoke out in summer 2006 about his hopes that Barack Obama would become president, saying, “If Senator Obama became ‘Presidential Candidate Obama,’ it would be the most electrifying thing to happen to the Democratic Party since [John F.] Kennedy.” Yet the grim realities of the past few years about the nature of the sausage factory have tempered that optimism for some, and Clooney’s film is a reflection of that journey from starry-eyed hope to a steely determination to survive. It’s a story about a politician who sounds blessedly different from everyone else but who turns out to have the same pathetic vices shared by everyone who ever ran for office, and it’s impossible not to feel as if Clooney’s working from a place of personal disappointment as much as (or more than) external analysis.

Which isn’t to say The Ides of March isn’t good. It’s actually very good, packed with a rich cast and fantastic performances that give it a smooth, lived-in feel. What makes it so notable is the way it defines itself through darkness and resignation, not through the sense of purpose that’s seemed to mark Clooney’s earlier turns behind the camera. (Even Confessions of a Dangerous Mind had a kind of wacky upbeat earnestness.) Clooney co-wrote the script with producing partner Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon, working from Willimon’s 2008 play Farragut North that was based on Willimon’s experiences working for Democrats a few years earlier. The play’s title comes from a Washington Metro station in the lobby district, and it’s used throughout the film not merely as shorthand for a location or an industry but for the ultimate destination for all the politicians and players who have such high hopes for themselves. The narrative follows the campaign strategists for a pair of Democratic players gunning for the presidential nomination in the heat of the Ohio primary, and as a reporter character notes to one of them early on, it doesn’t really matter who wins the White House. Sooner or later, they’ll all wind up working some cushy consulting gig off Farragut North, clocking low seven figures and taking long lunches. Clooney’s message here isn’t some strident warning that all good men hide a secret evil. It’s that sooner or later, you go where the money is. Dreams don’t earn interest at the bank, and ideals don’t line your pockets.

Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) is locked into a battle for Ohio with Senator Pullman (Michael Mantell), but the real action of the film is the chess game between the respective campaign leaders. Morris’ camp is run by Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), aided by the impossibly cool and confident Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling). Stephen’s a true believer, too — he is, in the words of another, “all goosebumpy” about Morris — and he uses that genuine passion to stirring effect as he rallies various interns and staffers to working phones and press for the governor. In the other corner, there’s Pullman’s manager, Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), as ruthless a strategist as Paul and just as fierce. Tom wants to hire Steve for himself, but Steve is loyal to Morris for all the big, noble reasons you know will become ground into dust before long.

What makes the film work is the utter conviction Gosling brings to his role and the stellar way he grows colder and more mature as he weathers a series of crises and scandals that change the way he views politics in general and Morris in particular. The film couldn’t be more different from Drive, but in both instances Gosling has demonstrated that he’s a modern master at playing men who are smart enough to keep their poker faces on when their worlds come crashing down. Morris makes a number of stupid mistakes as a man and a politician, but Steve never flies into a panic, never breaks, never cries. Even when his back’s against the wall, he never stops thinking, never stops trying to figure out how to solve whatever puzzle’s in front of him. The script is blessedly smart, and it treats its characters as real people trying to bring their intellect to bear on their situations. Even better, it talks up to its audience, not down. It’s always exhilarating to watch a movie about smart people whose brilliance isn’t a sin.

But I don’t want to make the film sound like it’s some academic exercise, either. In movies, it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it, and The Ides of March is a beautiful, clean, gorgeous-looking film. Cinematographer Phedon Papamichael makes wonderful use of rich colors, deep blacks, and crisp light and shadow. Maybe it’s a nod to the film’s origins as a play, but there’s a wonderful sense of the theatrical here, with every set-up framed to be just a little more grandiose than real life. While Morris is working over his opponent at a debate, Steve and Paul are frantically arguing behind the American flag that serves as the stage’s backdrop, their silhouettes popping against the stars and bars. Clooney works in little flourishes like these but doesn’t go out of his way to call attention to them. They color the tone, but never override it.

Clooney’s got that great cast, too. Hoffman and Giamatti tear at each other like wolves, and they’re both experts at only revealing certain layers of their personalities in a given situation. Evan Rachel Wood is magnetic as an intern in the Morris office who catches Steve’s eye, and Marisa Tomei makes a nice needling reporter whose pursuit of a story winds up teaching Steve a few brutal lessons, even if Tomei doesn’t look at all like she could be named “Ida Horowicz.” Jeffrey Wright’s equally engaging as a senator who carries enough delegates to put Morris or his opponent at the head of the race, and who finds himself courted by both men. Wright also gets one of the film’s best reversals, giving two different speeches that highlight his opportunism and speak to the story’s larger indictment of anyone waving a campaign button. In one moment, he punchily tells a campaign staffer that the only way he’ll budge is to be placed on the ticket as the vice presidential contender, but soon afterward he’s addressing a crowd of voters and speaking loftily of American exceptionalism. As he does in so many other moments, Clooney downplays the hypocrisy, letting the larger picture speak for itself. There might not be any shocking revelations about the way of the world here, but then, Clooney isn’t necessarily going for them. He’s just talking about disappointment, and the way we’re all doomed to forever forget and relearn the harsh truth about men who smile and shake our hands and ask for our vote. They ask for so much more, and we give it without thinking.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a member of the Houston Film Critics Society and the Online Film Critics Society. He’s also a TV blogger for the Houston Press. He tweets more often than he should, and he blogs at Slowly Going Bald.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Courageous Review: Cinema As Proselytism | Real Steel Review: Shawn Levy Answers This Question: Is It Possible to F*ck Up a Boxing Movie?









Comments

I'm intrigued to see PSH playing a role created by, of all people, Chris Noth. Talk about divergent.

Posted by: Jerry at October 7, 2011 1:26 AM

Glad to know we're in the good stuff season. I'm gonna need a weekend at the theaters to catch it all!

BTW, guessing this movie is an early Oscar contender.

Posted by: Fredo at October 7, 2011 1:52 AM

YES! I'm so glad this is good. I so wanted it to be.

Posted by: John G. at October 7, 2011 2:00 AM

So looking forward to seeing this. Another fine review, Dan.

Posted by: Kolby at October 7, 2011 9:15 AM

It was a well made movie but part of me felt like it was an episode of the West Wing with a storyline from Gossip Girl or 90210 jammed into the second half. I would have preferred they go with the death by 1000 cuts than have one major melodrama (even if the melodrama was well done, as it was here.)

Also, I felt like this could have been a prequel to Drive. All the issues I had with "Drive" would have been answered if this was kind of the origin story for The Driver.

Posted by: SoulHonky at October 7, 2011 9:22 AM

Excellent review.

Posted by: OldSchool60 at October 7, 2011 9:28 AM

Where has Gosling been all this time? He got some recognition for The Notebook (which even friends of mine who hate Sparks' novels and romance dramas really enjoyed,) then not a whole lot, and now he's in a ton of films. And not just the "behind on car payments" kind of films, they all seem to be really good ones.

Posted by: Markus at October 7, 2011 9:44 AM

What makes the film work is the utter conviction Gosling brings to his role and the stellar way he grows colder and more mature as he weathers a series of crises and scandals that change the way he views politics in general and Morris in particular.

Well, now I'm all goosebumpy.

Thanks, Dan. I think I would pay my ducat just to see these men wear suits and speak with big words. The measured praise from you is icing on the cake.

Posted by: Yossarian at October 7, 2011 10:14 AM

George sure is purty. Can I say that as a guy? George sure is purty. The man can wear a suit. He's maybe the only actor (I think) who could carry Clark Gable's and Cary Grant's ... um, jocks. Or something.

Posted by: , at October 7, 2011 10:33 AM

I’m really trying to like this Gosling guy, but it’s so hard to like him with that perpetual smirk he always has on his face. The guy is an average actor, but if he didn’t have that face and that tight little ass of his, he’d be some background actor on one of those MTV cool kid shows.


Now Clooney, Clooney is a different type of cat. I imagine him sitting out on a yacht somewhere in the south of France talking politics with his acolytes while that hot piece of ass he’s going to bang later that night sits in the corner sipping on a glass of merlot and showing just enough skin to tease. Clooney wants to play politics; he wants to be able to meet President Obama once a year and bend his ear about his latest cause, and of course while pictures are being taken, because with Clooney it’s all about the money shot. I don’t have anything against Clooney, just his shtick. He doesn’t have anything important to say, he just wants to look like he has something important to say, he’s a poser. Hopefully this film will be the end of his foray into politics, and not the beginning.

Posted by: Pookie at October 7, 2011 12:45 PM

Markus - Check out Half Nelson and Blue Valentine.

Posted by: Handle at October 7, 2011 2:12 PM

Sounds good! Thanks for the review!

Posted by: DarthCorleone at October 7, 2011 3:36 PM

I agree, Handle. Gosling was heartbreaking in Blue Valentine. He played down the pretty boy look with the receding hairline and huge glasses. It was interesting to see the change of his character from lovestruck young man to drunken, damaged and pitiful middle-aged father. Half Nelson was the same, too. He is not getting by on looks alone. For more Gosling goodness, watch Lars and the Real Girl.

Posted by: Goddess at October 7, 2011 5:46 PM

I thought this was a good movie. I wouldn't call it Oscar good though.

Posted by: Junierizzle at October 7, 2011 6:16 PM

a great cast but the film belongs to gosling ...

Posted by: snake at October 8, 2011 12:14 AM

I used to work at Farragut North!

Posted by: Monica at October 8, 2011 2:06 AM

Clooney doesn't have anything important to say!?! I beg to disagree sweet pookie, Geroge has been talking about Sudan for the last 6 years. Good Night and Good Luck was an indictment of the media and how the news can distort. A free press is the life blood of a free country. I haven't seen Ides of March but I imagine since he wrote the script, a script Daniel called smart and excellent. Yes, Clooney is a playboy, but the man has plenty of good things to say.

Posted by: Melody Be at October 8, 2011 11:35 AM

Couple of things:

1. Pookie - Clooney is far more than just the money shot. He was an incredibly good worker bee when his father ran for Congress a few years back. He was impressively willing to do grinding, door to door, work. Of course, it was his dad running, and of course he can afford to do grinding work for 10 weeks every once in a while. However lots of people who could afford to work hard and be nice do neither.

2. No one, NO ONE calls it "Farragut North" when referring to the area where lobbyists work. It's called K St. That may change at some point, as so many shops have moved closer to Chinatown, but to paraphrase another movie "stop trying to make Farragut North happen". When the play came out, folks in DC did the necessary eye roll. Remember that Washington DC is Hollywood for ugly (smart) people; it's small town in a big city.


Posted by: Pragmatist at October 8, 2011 6:48 PM

Pragmatist, I was actually referring to the metro station. I worked right across the street from in on L Street (and not as a lobbyist). The funny thing is, now I'm working in Chinatown.

Posted by: Monica at October 9, 2011 12:10 AM

Monica; Sorry about that, I wasn't intending my snark to be a reflection on your post. I was more aiming my snark-gun at the author of the play.

Posted by: Pragmatist at October 9, 2011 11:44 AM

Damn I miss DC. Yup.

Can't wait to see this!

Posted by: grace b at October 9, 2011 11:49 AM

I'll keep an eye out for this when it comes out on DVD/TV. (I don't like movie theaters.)

Posted by: SaBrina at October 9, 2011 1:18 PM

I thought it was just okay. It was just so... bland.

I mean, it was definitely a good movie because of the acting and cinematography. But the plot was so damn neat and unsurprising that it made the movie very forgettable. I wish I hadn't paid 10 dollars to see it. It's more of a rental.

Posted by: kayla at October 10, 2011 9:36 AM

why do they always pick the worst songs there are lots of great samba songs to select from

Posted by: Michael at October 19, 2011 1:15 AM

I enjoy you because of all of your effort on this site. Its been an motivation for me. I've passed this onto a friend of mine.

Posted by: vimax at November 30, 2011 9:25 PM

Grande blog que você tem aqui, mas eu queria saber se você soubesse de qualquer fóruns da comunidade que cobrem os mesmos tópicos falou neste artigo? ID realmente gostam de fazer parte do grupo onde eu possa obter um feedback de outras pessoas conhecedoras que compartilham o mesmo interesse. Se você tem alguma recomendação, por favor me avise. Apreciá-lo!

Posted by: vimax at December 1, 2011 12:25 AM

Congratulations on having 1 of the most sophisticated blogs Ive arrive throughout in some time! Its just incredible how much you can take away from a little something simply because of how visually beautiful its. Youve put collectively a great blog space great graphics, videos, layout. This is unquestionably a must-see blog!

Posted by: vimax at December 2, 2011 2:22 PM