The Ides of March

So, what do people think about this movie? I enjoyed it as a political drama, despite all the main characters being jerks. I'm with the reporter on the ridiculousness of the idea that electing a (purportedly) principled and well-meaning candidate can solve all a country's problems, or change the system in any significant, positive way. (I've had that concept crushed out of me over the last three years.) So the movie didn't have any particular sense of urgency to me. But it was a well-done tragedy in the classical sense of people being undone by their own flaws.

edited 9th Oct '11 5:20:21 PM by WarriorEowyn

As you see in the film, Morris is a Villain with Good Publicity. He has a stellar political career but he also has skeletons in his closet and knows that even he cannot do everything that he says he'll do.

Stephen struck me as an Only Sane Man. Most of his role is simply a guy who thinks he's doing what's right but he's still young and bound to make mistakes.

And the play that this was based on (Farragut North) I believe was written before the 2008 election. Mike Morris I think is supposed to be based on Ed Rendell, the Pennsylvania governor (with some of All The King's Men thrown in for good measure).

I found Stephen an amoral asshole. I didn't see anything wrong with the meeting, but not telling the campaign director right away what the other guy had told him about the campaign indicates that he was considering the offer.

And if you really, truly believe that a candidate is the best person for the country, then you don't leave and spill everything to the opposition just because you're mad at him. And if you don't think he's the best person for the job, you don't blackmail him into letting you run his campaign. I saw a guy whose ambition had basically overtaken everything else, leading both teams to distrust him; in keeping with the movie's title, "Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look; such men are dangerous."

I think he was justified in not telling him. Paul was an ego-driven jerk with a short fuse and either way, he would have fired him. Paul was a man with two sides: a bad side and a really bad side. Stephen had to be his own man.

edited 10th Oct '11 9:06:31 PM by Buscemi