The Ides of March (2011); Dir. George Clooney

The Ides of March could use a little good old-fashioned cynicism and paranoia. Instead, it fails to really make an impact.

My review now up at Capital New York.

Yes, I’m cynical about politics. I prefer it that way.

This entry was posted in Movies and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Ides of March (2011); Dir. George Clooney

  1. Jake Cole says:

    Yes, to all of this. It’s a film trying to tell you that politics is corrupt yet we’re supposed to buy that Gosling is so idealistic and innocent despite already being so calculating as a campaign higher-up. And then we’re supposed to feel jaded even though the movie doesn’t even begin to dig into the depths of political intrigue behind primaries. The film is never on the wavelength it wants to be on. It’s also kind of hilarious that a film supposedly about the backroom, cynical machinations of campaign machines doesn’t even get into the money. Instead it goes for predictable scandal and completely moves away from the point the film wants to make. I can’t find any mention of that scandal in what I’ve read about the original play, so I’m wondering if Clooney added that angle.

    Clooney’s a solidly classical director, even if that almost hurts him here (it’s too pretty to evoke a dark mood), and he’s magnanimous with his actors, but he’s denied himself a hero with this movie even though he cannot seem to function without one. Instead of then committing to the dark side, he just softens the bleakness.

  2. sheila says:

    Good point about the total lack of any conversation about money. An odd omission. I just can’t care anymore about the sexual peccadilloes of politicians. Gosling is supposed to be an experienced staffer, not some newbie intern filled with belief. I just have a hard time believing that he would be so shocked (aside from the personal shock, due to his relationship with the intern). I liked how quickly he went into damage-control mode, you could actually see why he was so revered and why he got so many jobs – but still, not shocking news at all. There are so many more serious issues in today’s political world. The Ides of March, ultimately, isn’t about anything.

    Needed a bit more anger, a bit more bite.

  3. Cara Ellison says:

    The poster makes me a little queasy. Notice the magazine says “Me” (the last two letters of Time)? It just looks a little too obvious. I suspect, from your review, the film is sort of overt in that way. Blah, I’ll pass.

  4. sheila says:

    Cara – I actually think the problem is that it wasn’t overt enough. It had a strangely muted feel to it – not enough anger, not enough specificity. The movies in the 70s made no bones about their anger and suspicion and therefore those political movies are strong, paranoid, and full of real feeling. This one seems cautious. So a little more overt messaging would have been good. As I said in my review: What is all of this actually supposed to MEAN?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.