Ides of March

Ides of March is a made for the stage movie with a really great cast. George Clooney hovers over the plot as the Democratic governor running for president. Religious but not in the formal sense of carrying an endorsement from a denomination. A loquacious throw-back to the ideals of an idealist version of the democratic ticket-manifested by side-stepping talking-points yet creating new talking points. America will be better if he wins, America can be the best again if he wins. America is doomed if he loses according to his quick wit, young media guru, number two -- Gosling. Replete with belief in a quality product, Gosling is the Shakespearen protagonist that serves to keep the movie from being too much of a commentary on the state of American politics and more about timeless human dilemmas-integrity, honor, honesty, promiscuity, loyalty. It's when his mistakes and his business becomes too closely linked with the mistakes and business of the governor's that the politics are less about ideals and more about reality, more about power.

I think that scripts that come from the theater can often suffer because the twists often seem too contrived on the screen. For some reason we, as viewers, are brought closer to the action in a theater. Movies, on the other hand, while getting us closer to the faces of an actor, can keep us at a distance from the plot. We simply, in the movie theater, are spectators, while in the 'real' theater, we are more of a role-player. The camera is less forgiving than a live audience. For instance, it doesn't make sense that Marissa Tomei, in this movie, as a the New York Times reporter, is the only reporter we see when it is time for a reporter to show up in the script. On the stage, we are ok with there only being one reporter involved in the story. Also, the interaction between opposing campaign managers, Paul Giamati and Philip Seymor Hoffman, would be easily managed on the stage, a live audience would expect the interaction to be a here-and-there type of relationship. While on a screen, we expect to be emotionally connected with each. We need to know how they arrived at a place and why their action in that place is related to how they got there. On stage, we are cool with them, all-of-a-sudden being in a place and acting as an actor should. My advice for watching this movie is to do your best to accept the movie as a traveling stage version. Expecting a full movie experience would leave one wanting more. The soundtrack helps some, the really good cast helps some, but the movie is best experienced as a stage performance.

The most fun part of the movie is realized in the truisms that Clooney, as one of the writers and actors, thrives on. Each scene seems to be built up around an absolute statement on the vague-ness of desired absolutes. Morality, integrity, loyalty, these sorts of things would be easy if they were absolute. This movie does well to make a loud statement about 'men' attempting to speak in absolutes as they seek out power. In the words of Shakespeare/Gosling, "Men, as politicians, can start wars, kill innocent people, bankrupt a nation, take part in corrupt corporate back-room deals. But they can't fuck the intern."