The Ides of March

Um jogo de carreiras versus fidelidade num argumento claro e numa direção precisa, criando performances de atores magníficas. Sem motivos secundários e com menos personagens do que estamos habituados de filmes semelhantes, mas com a concentração ainda maior neles. O facto de evocar uma excelente obra da HBO em vez de uma produção cinematográfica ambiciosa é uma desvantagem apenas na medida em que basta vê-la em casa (ao contrário do mais visual e atmosférico Michael Clayton, que era ainda mais um deleite no grande ecrã). (15/02/2012)

An ultra-bitter probe into the inside of the machine in which reality is prepared. The fantastic Gosling, who, even without a single grimace, can contain the fascinating tension between idealism and pragmatism, an excellent script and a wonderfully escalated scathing ending. An overall balanced and anti-idealistic drama that is an excellent counterweight to Hollywood escapism, which dominates Oscar nominations. It is a pity that, especially in the beginning, fairly solid knowledge of the American electoral system is needed (which I do not have at all), so I was groping slightly in the first minutes. But I blame myself for that and not The Ides of March. [85%] (23/01/2012)

I watched The Ides of March twice. I watched it for the second time mainly because I wanted to find out whether this movie was really boring or I just didn’t pay enough attention to it during the first watching. And I must say that even though the story is really interesting, I’m not in the mood to watch something that reminds me of the Czech government, where betrayal and revenge are part of the daily agenda of just about every political party. The actors were indisputably great. Ryan Gosling was amazing, even. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that this politics crap is not my cup of tea. (24/12/2012)

Like The Candidate and Primary Colors, The Ides of March shows us what we won’t see on the television news and what we rarely read about in the newspapers. It gives us a look behind the scenes, allowing us to get to know the men and women whose precisely balanced statements such as “I’m nobody, I’m anybody” make other men and women seems so outwardly convincing and trustworthy. The demystification process does not end with the removal of decorations and the greater interest in the preparation than in the live performance (just as Moneyball shows the “programming” of baseball games instead of the games themselves). Based on the stage play  Farragut North, the screenplay uses rapid-fire verbal exchanges to depict politics as not very fair juggling of valuable information. Given the existing information overload, however, the winner is not the one who knows more, but the one who is better able to manipulate facts and use them to his or her own benefit. Trust, friendship and other key concepts in the hierarchy of values lose their meaning because it is clear that it is much easier to gain someone’s interest if you put a knife to their throat (even if only in the figurative sense). The Ides of March takes into account the roles of various advisors to an even greater extent than earlier election dramas and makes outwardly powerful governors and senators mere media constructs that are dependent and manipulable. The film perhaps goes too far in relying on the power of words – it is directed in a generally unconventional way and underappreciates the power of images, but thanks to the elite cast, I still enjoyed it immensely. The actors are excellent without exception and their well-balanced performances in accordance with the functioning of politics make it impossible to draw a clear line between the villains and the good guys. We find ourselves in a place beyond good and evil, in a world where everything is relative. This opaqueness and uncertainty about who to trust elicit a feeling of hopelessness by which, in my opinion, the film fulfilled its purpose and George Clooney did his civic duty. 80% (23/01/2012)

This is another in Clooney’s series of contributions pointing out the wrongs of contemporary politics. This time he takes the Michael Clayton route, which means perfectly slick suits with a high coefficient of immorality, visual austerity, and audience nausea from all the characters who pass through the film. [PS: Gosling reigns supreme, keep it up.] (05/01/2012)