The movie, in case you’re unfamiliar or it hasn’t hit your town yet, is about golden boy Senator Gary Hart and how his run for the presidency was derailed in a three-week period over an extra-marital affair in 1988. Yes, that seems almost quaint now, but back then when a president’s character meant something to all Americans, just the possibility of impropriety was enough to kill a political career. So for many the movie was wistful nostalgia.
I enjoyed THE FRONT RUNNER. Hugh Jackman played Gary Hart. Hart was very charismatic and Jackman actually had to tone down his charisma to portray Hart. The rest of the cast was terrific. Vera Farmiga can do no wrong, J. K. Simmons was his usual excellent self (although at any moment I kept expecting him to launch into a State Farm commercial), Molly Ephraim was smart to quit her day job (LAST MAN STANDING), and Mamoudou Athie was a real standout. (I wonder if Mamoudou Athie is just his stage name?)
The writing was crisp, visually the movie was very interesting. You really felt you in the middle of a presidential campaign. Every scene was packed with people talking over each other and eating stale sandwiches on the run. I can't imagine this movie ever playing on CBS because so many people in it were not good looking enough.
Was it a groundbreaking movie? Will it be an Oscar “front runner?” No. But Reitman’s vision of showing the events from numerous perspectives was very much realized (in my opinion). You saw the affects of the affair on his family and his staff, and you saw the way journalists chose to cover the story – at times heroically and other times sleazily. There were ethics issues, #MeToo issues, judgment issues.
Again, my problem was that in light of current events, what was then such a shocking story now feels like the 24-hour news cycle on a slow day. But the movie was written in the Obama era. So much of a film's success rides on luck and timing and not being released the same day as a STAR WARS chapter. Sometimes you catch the zeitgeist and other times it leaves you in its wake.
Anyway, I went home and out of curiosity went on Rotten Tomatoes to see the critical reaction. YIKES. Most hated it. You realize the filmmaker’s vision means nothing unless it jibes with theirs. And for most of these reviewers, they wanted a different movie. Some thought it should have focused more on Donna Rice (the affair-ee) and dealt primarily with the unfairness and double-standard women have to endure. Yes, that’s certainly valid, but…
That’s not the movie Reitman chose to make.
Others had my reaction but way more severe. There was no just viewing it as a timepiece. To some it was irrelevant and why bother even making the damn thing? Uh… because it was entertaining?
Some questioned Jackman’s portrayal of Hart – like they’re so intimately familiar with Hart’s public and personal persona.
The overall point was these critics went into the movie with certain expectations, and instead of viewing it for what it was they viewed it as what it should have been (in their opinion).
And this is where every artist comes to a crossroad. Do your vision or try to ascertain what vision would be most embraced? If you go with the former you could go down in flames. If you go with the latter you probably will go down in flames and you’ll get less sympathy from me than I had for Gary Hart.
from By Ken Levine
Comments
Post a Comment