A lot of people will get caught up thinking too much about co-writer/director George Clooney’s political leanings when deciding whether or not they should go see, or whether or not they like The Ides of March. It’s almost become a refrain whenever the man announces a new project, “A political movie directed by George Clooney, what a shocker.” So the most important thing to know about this film is that it isn’t a movie about politics. It’s set in the political world, yes, more specifically during the battle-for-Ohio portion of a Democratic Presidential primary. The dialogue is about little other than politics, the characters are all either politicians or working on the campaigns of politicians, but the film itself is not a political one. This isn’t an expose shining a light on campaign corruption, like I’ve seen many people surmise. This isn’t liberal propaganda, a film meant to push Clooney’s left leaning ideas onto the viewer, like some might fear. This is simply a drama about people facing difficult decisions and then dealing with the consequences of their choices. And if you can get all of those pesky thoughts about politics out of your head while watching it, you’ll find that it’s a tense, effective drama, and well worth your time.
There are some minor flaws. There are a couple places where a character’s motivations rang false, where the plot developed in inorganic ways leaving a few holes behind. But it didn’t negatively affect the film too much. Plot isn’t the reason to see this movie. The reason to see it, plain and simple, is the cast. Clooney himself plays our candidate, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays his campaign manager, Paul Giamatti is the opposing side’s campaign manager, and Ryan Gosling is a young but high ranking media expert. It’s possible that this is the most talented group of actors that are going to be assembled for a film this year, and there seems to be some Meta context as to who was cast for what. Clooney is a bonafide movie star, the guy who sells projects more on fame, looks, and charisma than he does by being hugely talented. Hoffman and Giamatti are the utility players, highly skilled character actors who you cast to lend weight to your film, but who rarely get to headline anything mainstream themselves. And Gosling is a hot property, the young up and comer who is turning a lot of heads with his talents, and the guy who seems to be getting inducted into the big boys club by getting a chance to rub elbows with all of these top level actors in one movie. The thing I found interesting is that they’re all playing characters who fill the same role in politics that they do as actors in the production of this film.
Gosling acts as our protagonist, and the best scenes are when he gets a chance to be alone and really interact with each of the other three actors. Every pairing gets a spotlight scene, and every one is played perfectly by everybody involved. The give and take, the choices made by these stunningly talented men, it’s all just fascinating to watch. What they’re actually saying, the turns that the story takes, the dramatic stakes that it raises; all of that pales next to the joy in just watching this group of guys ply their trade. This movie could be about anything as long as it gave them a chance to build characters and have arguments with each other. My favorite scene is one where Gosling and Hoffman have a big confrontation. It’s kind of the crux of the film, the moment that sends Gosling’s character off on his journey, and they both really nailed it. Hoffman brings next level intensity and Gosling is able to project total vulnerability. He basically gets his throat slit in front of you and it’s really uncomfortable yet fascinating to watch.
None of these actors has anything to prove at this point, except maybe Gosling, and I think that he will convert a lot of his doubters after they see him here. His performance is complex and dynamic. There’s a period in the third act where he doesn’t really get much to do other than look stunned and wounded, but that’s more because of the material he’s working with than anything else, so I hope people don’t focus too much on that, because he doesn’t let the character remain stagnant. In the last scene of the film his character has made a turn, and Gosling effectively conveys the change. And, bottom line, he stands shoulder to shoulder with Hoffman and Giamatti and manages to more than hold his own; what more proof of an actor’s skill do you need than that? Also worth mentioning is the fact that he has some real chemistry with Evan Rachel Wood, who plays an intern that his character becomes romantically entangled with. When they start their flirting they bring more heat to the screen than any other romantic pairing I’ve seen in a mainstream film in a while, and I definitely wouldn’t mind seeing the two of them work together again in something more focused on relationships.
On the opposite end of the spectrum from the big, loud confrontation scenes is one in which Clooney and Hoffman have a tense interaction inside a car. We know what they’re talking about, we know that it’s going to be a rough conversation, but Clooney’s camera leaves us outside of the car, looking at its tinted windows, and not seeing or hearing anything. The uncertainty creates a ton of tension, and I was struck how Clooney as a director was able to create different kinds of anxiety in me at different times by both throwing me in the middle of the action and separating me from it completely. This movie gave me a new appreciation for his level of craftsmanship as a filmmaker.
One scene in particular is both perfectly scripted and visually crafted to set up all of the themes of the film and act as a microcosm of everything that it has to offer. Clooney’s character gives a big speech full of scripted promises in front of a huge American flag. Hoffman and Gosling lurk behind the flag, backstage in the shadows. They’re arguing about the real decisions the campaign is faced with making, decisions that have nothing to do with platforms or promises. This begins the separation between the public and the private as two distinct worlds, a theme that The Ides of March revisits constantly. By the end of the film the disparity between the two becomes so great that anything anybody says in public or on TV can be completely ignored as empty noise. This film seems to believe that politics leaves no room for authenticity in anyone. But remember, this isn’t a movie about politics, it’s a movie about people. Man is inherently a social creature, which also makes him inherently a political one. There seems to be no room for authenticity in humanity at all. We’re all projecting a false face, every moment of the day. How do we come to terms with that? Answering that question, that’s what this movie is about. That and why you’re not supposed to bang the interns.
