Ides of March (Movie)

Finished viewing: 11:30 PM 02.26.12

Synopsis: Some guy (SG) is a big campaigner for George Clooney's character, Morris, in what appears to be the Democratic Primary of Ohio between the frontrunner and an up and comer who's campaign is beginning to pick up speed in a bizarro 2012 election where a Republican won in 08. The Ohio primary is being held on the Ides of March, hence the title of the film. Paul Giamatti's character, lead strategist for the up and comer, attempts to recruit SG to the other team. Without going into to many other spoilers here, this event sparks a disillusionment in SG that--along with other plot events--allows him to become the lead strategist for Morris and help him more or less secure the Democratic nomination.

Movies it tried to be: Citizen Kane, Scarface, the Godfather, even Apocalypse Now if you wanted to stretch it.

Did it succeed: Hell no.

Highs: Engaging plot, plenty of intense political intrigue without needing a thorough knowledge of the subject, good cinematography.

Lows: Characterization, namely the female character. Writing seems lumbering and rough at points.

My thoughts: Where to even begin? The movie was fun, for sure. Although it is somewhat lengthy, it flies by--to the point where you are surprised it's over because of how fast it went.

However, the movie tried to be a tragedy and flat out failed. Why? Two reasons. First of all, the development of SG's downfall is not well illustrated at all. He is portrayed in the first act as a chipper, motivated campaign aide who loyally believes Morris is the one who will change Washington. He has faith in his presidential candidate and the chief strategist, Paul. He is also stated to be a near genius for the cause, quickly rising through the ranks with his attitude, tactics, and strategy for the campaign. Unfortunately for SG and the film on the whole, these aptitudes are never shown on screen. They should be shown in the first act, but the only time it even gets close is in the opening scene when he is testing a talking point on stage before a debate. It is later mentioned that the talking point was his idea. Everything else, even that point, is hearsay.

Then, there's the whole "corruption" itself. First, SG's falling out is over meeting with Paul Giamatti's character, which--once he's revealed the meeting to his boss--leads to his firing. Paul expresses anger at SG for not mentioning the meeting during a phone call: where SG initially wanted to tell him about the meeting, but changed his mind. What leads to the firing is confusing. Is it the fact he met with Giamatti in the first place, or the fact that it took a while for him to tell his boss? This point is never really made clear. However, SG's firing occurs near the same time as a potentially big scandal of Morris is revealed to him--which essentially ruins Morris' image in SG's eyes. However, although this scandal occurs before his firing, there really is no film time spent on how SG deals with this situation emotionally. He seems to just sweep it under the rug and forget about it until he gets fired, at which he immediately goes back to Giamatti to use it as a prize for hiring him on the other team's staff. This plan itself backfires, so SG goes back to Morris and uses his knowledge of the scandal to blackmail his way to getting Paul's job. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE FILM!!!! The writing paints SG as two-toned, pure black and white. He goes from a good guy (we guess, outside of his monologue about how he believes in Morris, this "innocent" section is never really fleshed out) to conniving bastard in three seconds. There is no gray area, no chance for SG to be fleshed out as a sympathetic character. SG and the movie itself emits no pathos, which a tragedy such as this should have. The film suffers for it.

Lastly, the female character and the source of the scandal serves as one of the backwards female characters in a film I have seen in a long time. Her whole purpose in the film is to have sex with SG, get pregnant, and kill herself over her pregnancy. Welp, guess that characterizes women pretty well, huh?

Overall, the movie provides plenty of entertainment; and I enjoyed it. But great movie it was clearly not. It did not deserve to be considered one of the best films of 2012, and it was not.

Rating: 3.25 out of 5 stars.