Other films –
Robert Drew’s Primary is an early—even foundational—version of cinema verite; the camera follows JFK and Hubert Humphrey around Wisconsin over the course of about 36 hours, splicing together representative scenes but avoiding (mostly) voice-over and talking heads, instead trying (as Drew says in commentary) to ‘find’ the drama of events. The long, long scenes of candidates shaking hands, after or around events—really still impressive. Particularly HH, who seems an automaton, a Rotary Robot, smiling and cheerful and empty. (I kept seeing him as Tweety Bird in his Mr. Hyde monstrosity incarnation, but I’ve just read Thompson’s _Fear and Loathing_, which excoriates Humphrey’s veneer as a chilling brutal cover for the crassest and most inauthentic form of politics.)
Meanwhile JFK seems more modern than most—I was struck by his inclusive irony, the way he could comment on an event somewhat slyly and bring his audience into that ‘critique,’ as if we were all sharing in that heightened awareness of the game.
(Also interesting to note how many of doc’s later big lights worked on this film–Pennebaker, Mayles…)
The two politicos in this flick seem to be following verite’s rules: they seemingly ignore the camera and connect with the people on site. That makes their engagements seem authentic, in some fashion, and seems (to those of us locked in 24-hour news cycles) innocent. Compare to Ritchie’s Candidate, who early on in the film seems like Candide, substantively connecting with people, trying to ignore—and even, when really caught up in a conversation, able to forget about—the cameras recording.
Sticking to docs, in later films it seems like awareness of the camera is a priori vital to a candidate’s self-presentation. Check out The War Room: at a lunch with the National Press Club, people start teasing James Carville about Clinton’s womanizing, and you see JC lean forward as if about to join in the joking… then he takes a long pause, and issues a “public statementâ€. You might be tempted to make some kind of sweeping historical claims about the Selling of the Pres/politics, how we’ve moved from an age of Innocence (and authentic social identity) to [media] Performance. Bob Roberts foregrounds this manipulation of image – and I really like that film, but… I’m not sure the binary holds up to much scrutiny. It almost seems like this cynical appraisal is as foolishly Manichean (or the binary too Stark, to riff on _All the King’s Men_) as a Mr. Smith naivete about the idealistic truth-teller. Even Redford’s Candidate was no Candide…
Instead, look at a film like Feed, which collates those moments where candidates (in the ’92 Presidential election) are prepping for a live feed interview with some reporter, and have to wait while the journalist gets to them. People look bland, empty, they joke with those around them, they primp, they wince … the film nicely—and in good verite style, without commentary—evokes the difficulty of controlling one’s performance, even as it carefully lays out the attempt to control. Tanner ‘88 is also really good at illustrating this, too: it’s tough to constrain the meanings of the text.
(Nixon films—and fictions—and, hell, non-fiction—even his own Presidential library—illustrate his uncomfortable movements back and forth between an attempt to ‘win over’ the audience and control his image, which he did very effectively through red-baiting or later on through a meticulous re-branding, even as the falsity and/or failure of his performance was so often embarrassingly visible, from the Checkers speech on through the tapes. Secret Honor is fascinating because it includes both a pitch-perfect caricature by Philip Baker Hall and a series of archival clips showing Nixon’s own performances, which make the film’s “exaggerations†seem far less cartoonish. Innocence and Manipulation are both useless terms for evaluating Nixon’s political performances.)
A pretty good doc about 1999’s San Francisco mayoral election (See How They Run) also undercuts the easy separation of the authentic and the performed –the grassroots candidate Tom Ammiano never fails to play to the camera, always doing shtick (he’d even done some stand-up comedy, which they show); the ‘mainstream’ candidate is “Slick” Willie Brown, but (as one of his spokespersons notes, in a moment of surprising openness) in America the African-American candidate is always interpreted as a “crook,” as slick, as inauthentic…
And I’d close off this self-indulgent rant with some love for Bulworth. Chris earlier noted that it was a little heavy-handed. Yeah—its “message†(about the control of politics by interests which exploit and marginalize African-American—and by extension any non-European racial—communities) is didactically presented. But you can’t just look at the script, here, or what the character says: Bulworth’s performance (and I don’t mean Beatty’s—I mean the politican’s) is so awful, it invites some fruitful comparisons with the above films and their depictions of political self-fashioning. The movie begins with Bulworth in full nervous collapse, weeping in his office—sobbing uncontrollably—as his campaign ads, and their slick vision of the ultra-competent handsome ‘star,’ play on his office television. When he puts on the hip-hop regalia, and starts rhymin’, he sucks… I think that the film does more than make its point about race and politics, it embodies something potentially challenging about how we read political bodies and performances—Bulworth represents the awkward, the inept, the un-handsome, the off-message rambler, the crap speaker, the uncanned and unpolished….who don’t usually get seen, or heard, or get easily marginalized no matter what they say. (I’m thinking of the relentless destruction of Howard Dean’s campaign.)
(Hmm. Meanwhile, I’m thinking, W ought to get roasted for this. Why doesn’t he? Compare to the ‘ineptitude’ of the current Bush in the slight Journeys with George–his “innocence†and goofiness is not crass, perfectly-shrewd Bob-Robertsy control… but his ability to sway the presentation of that package, to control the story, to exploit his flaws as expressions of authenticity even as he so rarely breaks from message… He’s a Bulworth who wins. Maybe.)
I know you are really talking to yourself (and I’m certainly enjoying eavesdropping on your course preperation) but I have a couple of responses. I think you are right to be critical of the idea that Drew’s Primary offers a glimpse into an “age of innocence and authentic social identity.” I’m reminded of the way FDR and his people carefully crafted their man’s “social image” and would probably argue that mediated performance has been a staple of politics since the rise of “penny newspapers” in the 1830s and 40s (see Neil Gabler’s Life, The Movie). If anything Primary may reflect an awkward moment in which politicians are learning how to manipulate a newly emergent, nearly ubiquitous medium. Have you watched the Harvey Milk doc? Is there anything there worth pondering?
Yeah, I am talking to myself–or figuring out some things I imagine may come up in my seminar, and figuring out how to reframe the potential conversation. Sorry. And/or thanks for letting me ramble.
Harvey Milk–good idea. You mentioned that to me before, and I forgot; I just ordered it.
And let’s cut to the skinny for recommendations (rather than my class notes):
–Primary — fascinating as film/journalism history; interesting politics; maybe not great fun for anything else.
–Feed — really intriguing. I have no idea if you’ll be able to find it; I grabbed it at a Blockbuster once, on vhs, and I think my recollection of footage exaggerates its merits. Still, for the completist.
–See How They Run — interesting but slight(er) doc; probably of most interest to those interested in city/SF politics. There have actually been a good number of political docs over the last ten-fifteen years, and many–like this one–are as interested in the campaign staff and the nuts/bolts of the run as they are in issues. There’s something to be said about that, but… I’ll save you from my saying it.
–Secret Honor — Best damn Nixon film ever, ‘though I did like Dick. (Who doesn’t?) Michael’s list of RMN films (in the comments on the Candidate) is pretty inclusive; you could probably add Shampoo, which has Nixon off-screen visiting LA while Beatty cavorts, and Where The Buffalo Roam (which changes Hunter Thompson’s “real” encounter with McGovern at a urinal to Nixon) — which is the far lesser of the two Thompson films, but still has its moments. I still need to get a hold of Nasty Habits, which is Watergate in a nunnery, but I hear it isn’t that great.
The others I mention you all probably know well.
I enjoyed “Primary.” It was especially interesting catching the candidates in unscripted moments, like sitting around their hotel rooms waiting for the election returns. As Mike points out, there’s very little voice-over, and only about 20% of the film is sync sound. So we’re left simply to study the candidates as they work the crowds, hang out on sidewalks, and then “turn it on” for the big stump speech. Humphrey for poor farmers, Kennedy for global leadership and peace. And, ahh, the quiet radiance of Jackie!
I think the real reason Humphrey lost the nomination is because his campaign song was so lousy. “Huuu-bert, Hubert Humphrey” sung to the tune of “Davy Crockett.” Yeesh! Jack’s was much more modern, more upbeat. Sinatra singing “whoops there goes the opposition” to the tune of “High Hopes” (I actually have a couple of copies of this record, the flip side is “Jack Kennedy All the Way.” Only 1000 were pressed).
Although it’s not a political film, it’s certainly relevant here: the Maysles brothers’ “The Beatles First U.S. Visit” is very good. Again, no voice over. Shot just as their mentor would shoot it. Just the four lads been driven around New York and D.C., waiting around in their hotel rooms, etc. It’s really an expanded version of “What’s Happening! the Beatles in the U.S.A.” which appeared on TV in 1964. It’d be interesting to play this back-to-back with “Primary,” if only to undercut even more “the separation of the authentic and the performed.” In an odd way, the films are practically identical: stops at town halls for scripted performances, on-air interviews with local DJs, phone calls, driving from town to town, then back to the hotel to listen to themselves on the radio, or watch themselves on TV while the manager reports the latest numbers (record sales, chart position, votes). A good deal of “Primary” shows Kennedy swarmed by awe-struck girls, begging for autographs.
Best song about Nixon? Frank Zappa’s “Dickie’s Such an Asshole.”
By the way, Mike, have you read David Greenberg’s “Tricky Dick Flicks”?
In my previous comment, I stated that “only about 20% of the film is sync sound.” I should be more precise. The entire film was shot sync sound, from what I understand. I don’t know anything about sound recording and mixing, but I wonder if what happened was that the filmmakers found it difficult, if not impossible, and perhaps even unnecessary, to have true sync sound, because you can’t really go up to Hubert Humphrey and ask him to hold it for a second while you do a slate. So they probably just kept the sound rolling and hoped they could match everything up in the editing room. Which they did, whenever they could (it’s easier to do with a strong visual cue, like Humphrey slamming his car door shut or a close up of Kennedy giving a speech. More difficult with a wide shot in a room of 50 people or so all talking at once). The choice may have been (for aesthetic reasons?) not to try too hard, or even bother with sync except when necessary. I have to say, it gives the film a unique texture. For example, you’ll hear Humphrey make a joke but his lips aren’t moving (but maybe that’s just his Rotary Robot personality).
Hey Mike, I just watched Downfall. Wow, what a powerfully disturbing vision of ideology run amuck. Bruno Ganz’s Hitler is one wild, complexly layered performance. A human scaled representation, Ganz’s Hitler comes across as believably insane and genuinely thoughtful–even kind (when his generals aren’t fucking his grand plan into the cold hard ground). Interestingly, as I was watching, I couldn’t help but compare this cinematic Hitler with another cinematically deranged politician–Anthony Hopkins’ Nixon in Oliver Stone’s surprisingly sober bio-pic. Downfall is a film worth watching and a fine addition to the warehouse of WWII films. Ganz blows Jamie Foxx’s performance of Ray Charles out of the water. Then again, the Academy voters would never have recognized this performance so its a mute point.
Does this count as a political film: Ron Howard channels Opie, Andy, Ritchie and the Fonz!
I admire Howard’s total lack of vanity. He makes a lot of good comedy regarding those ludicrous hairpieces he has to wear in order to relive Opie and Ritchie.