The Ides of March (2011)

The Ides of March boasts itself as a modern political thriller, unveiling the sullied underbelly in today’s presidential races.  It is seen through the eyes of Stephen “Stevie” Meyers played by Ryan Gosling, as he maneuvers difficultly through the chaos, swagger, and rules that follow a presidential hopeful.  Stevie writes the words that Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) takes to the stand for every rally and debate.  He is an idealist, persuading candidates to say words that will cause change while sustaining strong percentages in the polls.  We join this film near the end of the primaries, where it is down to two candidates reaching for support in Ohio.  If they can favor the votes of Senator Thompson, that particular candidate will take the lead, and the dominos for the rest of the election will fall.  Helping Morris and Stevie as head of the campaign is Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), whose arch rival, Tom Duffy (Giamatti) runs the office of the opposing candidate.  Tensions are tight as Thompson wavers between Morris and rival, questioning each one’s values and pushing them into dark corners.  Meanwhile, Stevie makes a bold decision to dip his toe in the rival’s pool.  This, oddly, is the catalyst for the balance of this film.  We watch, at times nervously and at other times cautiously, as Stevie discovers a young flame within the polling station, only to see that flame extinguished by the man he has pledged allegiance to.  The lines are then blurred between power and corruption, and a very real, very nightmarish vision of politics is discovered.  Remember, those with information hold the puppet’s string.

There is no question that politics is dirty.  Every four years, we watch as candidates get slung through the mud, hoping to come out the other side with the biggest slice of our apathetic vote.  The Ides of March doesn’t try to show us a glorious side to politics, or change the perception of the truth; but in the same sense, it proves that it has nothing new to show us.  George Clooney has crafted an extremely safe film that boasts a phenomenal cast, but a mediocre story.  The journey Clooney takes us on through the eyes of Gosling never quite reaches the level of lukewarm.  Equipped with odd side chapters, lumpy characters, and a twist that could be seen from the posters alone, The Ides of March becomes a cinematic oddity.  What was Clooney’s goal?  What type of film is this supposed to be?  Are we witnessing the transformation of a young idealistic staffer into the darkness of politics?  Is Clooney demonstrating the normality of intern struggle with his introduction of Jill Morris?  What does this film mean today?  Or is he showing that no candidate, no matter how good he sounds on paper, is flawed?  These seem like the questions Clooney wanted to ask, but was concerned about mass audience appeal.  Which would be safer; crafting an Oliver Stone-esque conspiracy movie or a film that would resonate with the Thursday afternoon geriatric watcher?  There were no boundaries broken, no political mayhem to sink our teeth into, or any impressive characters.  His Good Night, and Good Luck (or better yet Confessions of a Dangerous Mind) was more of a taut thriller than this film.  The Ides of March had the makings of an impressive film to dazzle your eyes and your mind, but in the end it felt like a political afterthought. (or better yet, a redundancy)

With Clooney fumbling behind the camera, it was up to our actors to take control.  If the ship is sinking, do you jump ship or save the remaining passengers?  For Ides of March, everyone jumped ship.  This was Ryan Gosling’s year, with Drive and the simple, yet effective, Crazy, Stupid Love, it is disheartening that his worst performance of the year will be his 2011 swan song.  Devoid of emotion and scattered with reason, one could not grasp who Stevie Meyers was, will be, or even wanted to be.  A proprietor of truth and reason, this changes instantly when faced with a dilemma.  Gosling’s stumbling introduction also creates chaos for the viewer because as we believe him to be true to Morris’ campaign; but he is not afraid to visit with Duffy?  What led Gosling to this point of imbalance?  We need someone to guide us through a film, and Gosling couldn’t keep his head above this Clooney mess.  The same can be said for Hoffman, Giamatti, and even Clooney himself.  Pretentiousness aside of casting yourself as the presidential hopeful, at least define yourself.  The “kitchen” conflict felt forced and unwelcomed in this film.  The Ides of March felt like a coven of bickering girls vs. a true political pot-boiler.  Clooney would have been more apt to title this Mean Girls 2.  Surprisingly, the only saving character in this film is Marisa Tomei, which speaks to (my opinion) the truth of this movie.  She plays the swarthy reporter assigned to follow the nagging characters.  She is seen bantering back and forth, a playful game of cat and mouse, when Gosling approaches her with his emotions.  She rebuffs with a great speech about not being his friend, that this was a job.  She felt like the only glue to the rest of the characters, and the only interesting character in the entire film.  

I cannot understand how The Ides of March received the praise that it did.  It is Clooney’s sloppiest film to date, and despite the great cast, they all  walk through this film with mediocrity like it was a Tuesday at the office.  The intensity was missing, the big surprise ending wasn’t there, and the emotional drama seemed to be forgotten, so it left us with just a splattering of what could have been a great movie.  The Ides of March could have been a political film that really dove deep into the world of presidential candidates, but instead it played soft, gripping us to nothing except the final ending credits.  It was a major disappointment, leaving the average viewer with too many questions and not enough answers.  Gosling and Clooney had better films this year.