Did you hear the one about the hanging chad and the president who stole an election? Unfortunately for the United States this isn't a joke but the sad reality of the 2000 Presidential Election. George Walker Bush -- now known by 75% of this country as the guy who screwed things up -- may have lost the popular vote (and arguably the electoral vote), yet still managed to defeat Al Gore to become the 43rd President. Recount, HBO's latest made for TV movie, rewinds the game tape and dramatizes the events that forever changed the fate of this country. While Recount is based on a fascinating historical event, it tends to play out like most TV movies: substandard, heavy-handed and, at times, downright silly. Yet, despite its weaknesses, the strength of the subject matter somehow manages to keep things entertaining, informative, suspenseful and (as a result of the facts behind how an election was stolen) infuriating.
In 1976 Alan J. Pakula broke the mould, crafting (what I consider) the best political potboiler of all time: All the President's Men. What makes ATPM so powerful and effective is its relentless commitment to reproducing the events it portrays as honestly and accurately as possible. Pakula was a master at creating tense, paranoid and suffocating films and this ability translated perfectly to ATPM, where the suspense and fear of unknown forces was always palpable. Recount director Jay Roach is best known for directing comedies, very broads ones at that, and I'm flummoxed why he would be chosen to call the shots on a film that should be as sober as a supreme court judge. Roach is a fish out of water and his inability to finesse the truth into something believable and seemingly unbiased is the root of what is wrong with Recount.
I don't watch political movies wanting to know the political allegiance of the writer, the producers, the director and all the actors. On the contrary, in order for me to feel engaged by a political film, I want to feel as if I'm witness to something as objective and devoted to fact as possible. The last thing I want is to be manipulated or guided by a partisan agenda, the very fault that makes Recount (almost) unforgivable. This historical drama offers no such objectivity, opting instead to bombard the viewer with heavy doses of overwhelming bias. Simply put, the Democrats are all portrayed as purveyors of good, honest and righteous standards and practices while the Republicans are corrupt, conniving and downright evil sons-of-bitches. Even though writer Danny Strong has to be assigned some blame for his thin characterizations, Roach gets zero cred for doing nothing to soften the heavy handedness of these portrayals.
Now don't get me wrong, I do believe the Republicans stole the election through the employ of dirty (barely legal) politics, but if the people behind Recount had realized the truth of these events would be far more powerful than editorial liberties, this movie could have been profound. I suppose they felt the truth had to be made 'sexy' and that one-dimensional archetypes would ensure their message be heard loud and clear. In other words, Recount does the equivalent of putting white cowboy hats on the Democrats and Black ones on the Republicans (replete with waxed moustaches for them to twist as they cast an evil smirk).
Because Recount will undoubtedly be discredited by the right as left-wing propaganda, the filmmakers cheat this story out of a chance of ever being heard (or taken seriously), which is painfully ironic since the story it tells is how the American public was cheated out of knowing who really should have ben the President in 2000.
http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/
In 1976 Alan J. Pakula broke the mould, crafting (what I consider) the best political potboiler of all time: All the President's Men. What makes ATPM so powerful and effective is its relentless commitment to reproducing the events it portrays as honestly and accurately as possible. Pakula was a master at creating tense, paranoid and suffocating films and this ability translated perfectly to ATPM, where the suspense and fear of unknown forces was always palpable. Recount director Jay Roach is best known for directing comedies, very broads ones at that, and I'm flummoxed why he would be chosen to call the shots on a film that should be as sober as a supreme court judge. Roach is a fish out of water and his inability to finesse the truth into something believable and seemingly unbiased is the root of what is wrong with Recount.
I don't watch political movies wanting to know the political allegiance of the writer, the producers, the director and all the actors. On the contrary, in order for me to feel engaged by a political film, I want to feel as if I'm witness to something as objective and devoted to fact as possible. The last thing I want is to be manipulated or guided by a partisan agenda, the very fault that makes Recount (almost) unforgivable. This historical drama offers no such objectivity, opting instead to bombard the viewer with heavy doses of overwhelming bias. Simply put, the Democrats are all portrayed as purveyors of good, honest and righteous standards and practices while the Republicans are corrupt, conniving and downright evil sons-of-bitches. Even though writer Danny Strong has to be assigned some blame for his thin characterizations, Roach gets zero cred for doing nothing to soften the heavy handedness of these portrayals.
Now don't get me wrong, I do believe the Republicans stole the election through the employ of dirty (barely legal) politics, but if the people behind Recount had realized the truth of these events would be far more powerful than editorial liberties, this movie could have been profound. I suppose they felt the truth had to be made 'sexy' and that one-dimensional archetypes would ensure their message be heard loud and clear. In other words, Recount does the equivalent of putting white cowboy hats on the Democrats and Black ones on the Republicans (replete with waxed moustaches for them to twist as they cast an evil smirk).
Because Recount will undoubtedly be discredited by the right as left-wing propaganda, the filmmakers cheat this story out of a chance of ever being heard (or taken seriously), which is painfully ironic since the story it tells is how the American public was cheated out of knowing who really should have ben the President in 2000.
http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/