The Contender (a pseudo-conservative slant)
Okay. Full disclosure. I saw this movie in the theatres years ago. Everything that Drew has said is true. The casting is impeccable, the acting superb, and the script fabu. I however left this movie with a bad bad taste in my mouth. Full disclosure part deux: I am not a liberal. I'm not necessarily a Republican but I do lean toward the conservative side. Full disclosure trios: I am in reality a registered libertarian. Who cant get behind the de-criminalization of pot, honestly? Now that that is out of the way, a review(of sorts).
My main beef with this film isn't the political sideline(re: predominantly liberal), or the unnecessary camera moves, or whatever... My main problem is Joan Allen. Specifically, Joan Allen's character. The point of this film is Pres. Jeff Bridges wanting to nominate Joan Allen as his VP. Senator Gary Oldman(a Republican) is on the approval committee and he wants his friend, Virginia Gov. William Petersen, as VP. So naturally Oldman does everything in his power to block Allen's nomination.
The main focus of the film is the conflict between Oldman and the Bridges Administration/Joan Allen. It is at times compelling, intelligent, and superbly acted. However, the crux of the drama is in Allen's character being waylaid with her "past"; sexual misconduct in college that is on tape. The participants on said tape are either Allen or not. Yeah its that Gang Bang scenario Drew mentioned. Now, Allen could simply dismiss said accusations by telling the Approval Committee the truth about her college experience. Instead she goes on for 2 HOURS with a stonewall of "My personal life in College is not for public record." What is this, the 1950's?
In today's political arena, keep in mind this movie came out post-Monica, I think it would be both admirable and wise for a politician put in such a position to be truthful and honest with the press/American people. Because, as in the minds of the people in the film, you are judged in the public eye as guilty until proven innocent.
So, for what seems like forever Joan Allen does a credible job of acting retarded in the face of political suicide. The truth about Allen's 'fling' is finally, and predictably, told to Pres. Bridges at the end. The fact that without said scandal and conflict there would be no movie shows the movie for how weak I thought it to be. Personal politics aside I cannot recommend this movie fully do to the frustratingly weak plot and pace. Buyer beware.
-Nick Vinson
posted by Nic at 1:37 PM
5 Comments:
I wouldn't say the pacing is weak, but I certainly agree that Allen's character makes a very ill-advised moral stand for really no good reason as far as her political career is concerned. As you say, her stonewall just makes her look guilty when she could easily save face by simply confronting the issue. The movie, I think, was written in response to (in conjunction with?) Clinton's comment during one of the many investigations into his life: "Even the president has a private life." One of the reviews I read also made a good point: what does it matter what politicians do in their spare time? That really shouldn't concern us at all. That's not what affects us. What affects us is what they do on the record: how they might behave with diplomats, how they vote, etc. Certainly those in the public eye are going to have a more public life than, say, you or I, but does Tom Cruise's private life really affect mine at all? No. Neither does a politician's. Of course not everyone thinks this way in this country so realistically speaking, Joan Allen's character is indeed foolish for not tackling the issue. What I wouldn't say, however, is that this makes the entire plot in vain.
5:47 PM
i just felt that the whole of the plot was HINGING on her stonewall. oh. sidenote. go read my blog. someone annonymously posted a retaliation or something. ha.
i should comment further on pacing. at times it seemed to drag on forever. and some scenes just seemed extranious for the purpous of spouting some political opinion. I.E. the scene where Joan Allen is visiting her Father and her son is talking about the 'Baby Jesus' and the father comments on how noble a crusade it was for him to get 'Jesus out of our schools.' our sure the point of the visit, which is later explained in the dialogue of the scene, has merit toward Allen's character... but did we really need that whole business with her son/father?
Also, when Allen is talking the Oldman's wife. and she explains that she had an abortion, correct me if i am wrong, but is that information used for anything? at all? does it just hang there for... what exactly? depth of character? for a character that tells more with her eyes(a kudos to the actress that played Oldmans wife) was this information necessary? I dont think so.
If you are interested in Rod Lurie try and track down his TV show for ABC "In the Line of Fire" its cancelled now, but boy was it good. it had Jack Bauer's Wife (the actress not that exact character) heading a taskforce of FBI to take down David Paymer, a mob boss. The scripts, which as IMDB points out, mostly penned by Lurie, hold that edge and wit that the Contender script largely portrayed.
3:57 PM
I like the idea of having a few extraneous moments in films...assuming they earn them. I think this film does. Also, I would argue that it's hard to say that any scene with Philip Baker Hall is wasted.
Essentially the Hall scene is to establish 1)her defection from the Republican party that's referenced several times in the film, 2)her place in a family of politicians, 3)that I like Philip Baker Hall.
The scene with Oldman's wife establishes that even his wife has difficulty with his misogyny regarding Oldman's tactics on the committee. She was also warning Joan Allen about Oldman's next move to try and claim that Allen was/is a baby-killer. Oldman's wife was going to use herself and her abortion so that Allen could point out Oldman's hypocrisy. The fact that she doesn't do this once again underscores how we're supposed to be in awe of Allen's principles.
6:03 PM
Ah. Note to self: Watch this movie again. Was that Philip Baker Hall who played her dad? Awesome! I agree that that scene is important, just not... you know all of that scene.
My memory/emotions of this film are based off of a single viewing 4 years ago. Im surprised I remembered this much about it. hehe.
10:31 AM
I like how I can have the balls to say I dont like this movie, yet there is enough good stuff in it to recommend it to Somebody. Hah
12:02 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home