*SPOILER ALERT*I recently went to see a movie for the first time in several months. Since my first choice was sold out I had to settle instead for The Ides of March, the latest attempt by Hollywood to destroy film by reaching too far to the center. Yet, it was the only other title that showed even a modicum of promise in what has been possibly the worst year for film in a decade. I checked Rotten Tomatoes and found that it had an 83% rating from critics and a 73% rating from audiences, this disparity between the masses and the critics is usually a good sign. So, ignoring my better judgment, and a very lukewarm review from the A.V. Club (one of my most trusted sources), I decided to fork over the eleven dollars to see a big-budget movie starring George Clooney and Ryan Gosling about American politics. The worst part? I was kind of excited.
The Ides of March follows the career of Ryan Gosling (whatever his character's name is, its not important), a young and idealistic political consultant for George Clooney's character's presidential campaign during an Ohio Democratic primary. The film begins with a debate between Clooney and some bald, unattractive presidential candidate who doesn't have a chance in the general election, but might win because of some ridiculous election law in Ohio that allows voters to vote in both primaries. During the only minute of debate that the audience gets to see, the Bald Annoying Guy proclaims himself a Christian and attacks Clooney for not disclosing his religion. Clooney responds, "my religion is written on a piece of parchment called the Constitution."
Even I, being the kind of person who tries not to believe in anything, got a boner from the rhetoric in this film. Clooney is presented as a white Obama (they even had the famous "Hope" poster designed by the man behind Obey Cloting, edited with Clooney's face, and a new catchphrase: "Believe"). He is sincere and not political and seems willing to fight to change the political system and the role of government in American society.
I was on the edge of my seat; the movie seemed smart, and relevant to the current political crisis, which, if you haven't been paying attention, is a like the Titanic of political theater. However, this never came to fruition. Instead, Gosling's character makes a rookie mistake--meeting with the opposition's campaign manager--gets fired for it, and then uses some dirt he finds on Clooney to get rehired as the campaign manager, replacing Phillip Seymour Hoffman, the man who fired him. Typical, political bullshit. Yet, this is the rest of the movie.
Oh wait! Did I mention the dirt Gosling has on Clooney? Clooney has sex with an intern on his campaign... she gets pregnant and needs an abortion... Gosling finds all this out because he is nailing her...then she dies because she doesn't read the directions on her prescription bottle! Oh no!
This brings us to the main problem with The Ides of March: it has nothing to do with politics. It starts with a promise of insight into the current political chaos plaguing the 24-hour new cycle. The movie even makes a point of comparing Clooney's character to President Obama. However, it digresses into a soap-opera style scandal, derailing the Clooney/Obama metaphor, which, in turn, destroys the potential of this film to be relevant at all.
The fact that Clooney (the Obama stand in) is white exposes how far to the center these film execs are reaching for revenue. People simply don't want to see a movie about Obama if he is black, which, by the way, he is. They would rather Obama be white and look like George Clooney. Then they won’t confuse him with an Al Qaeda operative. Or perhaps a Black Stalin. Or the Anti-christ. And that line about the constitution? That could be Ron Paul talking! It is abundantly clear that this film was focus-grouped to make sure and that everyone’s patriot bone would be struck hard- and that the studio would make a lot of money, of course.
This also explains the scandal in the film. The Ides of March, after a great beginning, turns into a masochistic cable-news wet dream. It reduces politics to the ridiculous scandals that aren't always verified, yet occupy endless hours of cable news airtime.
This makes The Ides of March a great movie about how the majority of Americans see politics. They get emotionally enthralled by the rhetoric a candidates farts out about fixing the system, or being a maverick. They truly believe that this candidate is the one candidate in the entire world that actually means it . And, Oh my! He is attractive--not like Clooney's opponent, eww! Then they see weeks of coverage of a scandal involving this "special" candidate sending pictures of his penis to girls on the internet (Andrew Weiner), getting a blow-job from an intern (Clinton), or, in this case knocking up one of his interns.
The problem is that this deeply pessimistic yet incredibly reductionist view of politics presented in The Ides of March distracts from the real issues. Like I don't know, the federal government defaulting on its loans maybe? That being said, this pointless drama is exactly what people want, and this is why cable news and The Ides of March provide it for them.
