Get your own Free Home Page
Directed by Rod Lurie
Written by Rod Lurie
Starring Joan Allen, Gary Oldman, Jeff Bridges, Sam Elliot, Christian Slater
USA, 2000
Rated R (brief strong sexual content, profanity)
The Academy tends to award films that are safely provocative, that are deep on the surface (I am not against the Academy, but their purpose is self-congratulation, not criticism, and so many people seem to take their word for what is good and what is bad cinema), and today's audiences like to pat themselves on the back for loving "intelligent" movies. It's not entirely their fault. Hollywood, which is their primary source of motion picture entertainment, does not offer them much of anything, so they are forced to stoop to dumb levels. But I hate to go on a rant about the state of the movie audience, because I don't think it's important for people to enjoy brainy entertainment, and I don’t want to emulate the part of Jonathan Rosenbaum’s content that is ever critical of the industry (though I do love most of everything I’ve read of the man’s work). I have made the decision to disregard the business of the movies and stick to looking at the movies themselves, mainly because the ins-and-outs of the industry do not interest me in the least and I never bothered to acquire extensive knowledge on the subject; therefore, I post this review at the risk of embarrassing myself and murdering my credibility. However, movie politics seem to be getting just as sinister as government politics, or maybe it has always been this way; the studios, the filmmakers, the producers, the actors- they put on a pomp show and demand the approval of the Academy, just like a lot of politicians pander to potential voters, and they're sole purpose is to get that golden statue, not to make a statement or even to bring something to the viewers... but they gain respect by getting these prestigious citations.
The Contender obviously takes Clinton's side in Monicagate; I did too. But it ends up maybe not being but definitely feeling like propaganda because of only a few completely botched-up factors: its devastatingly syrupy score (by Larry Groupé) and its convenient ending. The Vice President dies in the film and President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges) replaces him with Ohio Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen). A bully Congressman (Gary Oldman in heavy makeup) reveals that Hanson participated in a college orgy as a freshman. The Senator refuses to deny or confirm these accusations, stating that it’s not right for the questions to be asked in the first place. Lurie’s film asks some interesting questions, and answers them subjectively. The movie is about feminism, patriotism, and the right of the people, even politicians, to have their personal lives.
It's unsubstantial not because its ideas aren't any good or impertinent, but because they’re sunk by message movie drivel. And why is this a feel-good movie? Good wins over evil, liberalism wins over conservatism, and the movie makes the fact that Bill Clinton wasn't kicked out of office a national triumph. I love the fact that the movie takes a stand, takes sides, and that the results manage to be mildly amusing, but it forces its opinions on the audience so relentlessly that we’re supposed to feel bad if we don’t agree with everything Lurie has presented (I, for one, do agree that someone’s private life is absolutely nobody’s business, but that’s not the point…) It’s populist provocation. Did I mention how much I hate the music? Despite my dislike for this movie, I have to humble myself and say that my opinions aren't as well-informed as those of adult critics and movie-goers; I identified with the naïveté of Christian Slater's character.
The film uses some potent space manipulations, but none that were not more brilliantly achieved in the thematically similar The Insider. Jeff Bridges gives a very light, guy-next-door performance as the President; he's a combination of slob and gentleman. I never realized how good an actor Bridges was until I saw him in the otherwise deplorable The Big Lebowski; he does nice work here. And, regardless of my quibbles, Joan Allen's performance is very good. She's an excellent actor, but she may never be a star. In this film and in The Ice Storm (probably the greatest performance I've seen her do), she's so real that she's dull. She doesn't have a catchy on-screen personality. In Pleasantville also, her performance was beautifully underplayed. In all the films I've seen her in (and I haven't seen many), she rarely hits a false note. In her role in The Contender, she never goes for the obvious tricks.
One good thing about this film is that it presents an array of reasons why people want power in politics. Some are wicked control freaks, others have insanely frightening wives. The film can also be applauded for having a strong heroine. No, I’m not going to complain about the lack of good roles for women in film. I think there simply aren’t enough good roles for actors in general and, hence, not enough great movies. But Laine Hanson, who isn’t exactly a well-written character, is given a great human element by Allen’s performance. Here is a person under so much pressure and scandal who manages to be unyielding in the cruel, sexist world of politics (she is constantly referred to as “the gentle lady from Ohio” in the hearings scenes), even when the temptation to defend herself is enormous. There’s something really invigorating about seeing someone who has such a firm, stable value system, someone who sticks to her principles even when they’re “inconvenient,” which, as everyone knows, is one of the greatest toils of life.
By Andrew Chan [NOV. 7, 2000 (election day)]
Get your own Free Home Page