Directed by: Michael
Ritchie
Music: John Rubenstein
Writer: Jeremy Larner
Starring: Robert Redford,
Don Porter,
Peter Boyle, Allan
Garfield,
Melvyn Douglas, Karen
Carlson
The
day after I published my review of Raj Hath came the news that Hollywood
icon Robert Redford had passed away. He deserves a tribute if ever anyone did,
and I mentally reviewed the Redford films I’d watched: should I rewatch All
the President’s Men (a favourite of mine, and so relevant to today’s
political environment here in the US) or Sting? Or perhaps Butch
Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? That evening, my partner-in-crime, Shalini,
texted me – shouldn’t we watch a Redford film to commemorate his passing? Of
course!
Neither of us is a fan, exactly, but Robert Redford’s contribution to cinema is extensive. He was not only a good actor, producer and director, he was also a very well-known environmental activist, an ally of Native Americans, indigenous people and the LGBTQ+ community, and a strong advocate for independent cinema. In 1978, he co-founded the Sundance Institute and the Sundance Festival to foster a new generation of filmmakers and to nurture fresh voices in cinema. This was a man who was regarded as a genuinely nice human being in celebrity circles.
It had been some time since Shalini and I had a watchalong, and this was as good an excuse as any. As is my wont, I left it to Shalini to choose the film; my brain doesn’t work at the best of times, and Shalini has the innate ability to choose entertaining films. In any case, by the time we were discussing this, Dustedoff had already reviewed Butch Cassidy… so that was out. We had decided to watch the film that weekend, and Shalini chose The Candidate, one of Redford’s early films. We had neither of us watched it before.
The film begins with Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle) in a bit of a bind. The Senate race in California is drawing near, and the Democratic Party does not have a candidate to field against the Republican incumbent. Senator Crocker Jarmon is a widely popular three-term Senator, and as the incumbent, he has the advantage. No Democrat is willing to stand against him; they all know it is an unwinnable race. In a bid to ensure the election is not a ‘no-contest’, Lucas travels to California to seek a fresh candidate; someone whom they can present as a credible alternative. Bill McKay (Robert Redford) is young, handsome, charismatic… as well as an environmental activist and a public litigation lawyer.
Alas, McKay proves to be not just reluctant but idealistic as well. It is only when Lucas promises him that, since they have an ice cube’s chance in hell of actually winning, McKay can say whatever he wants that Bill unbends. This may be the platform that will allow Bill to expand on his views regarding the environment, abortion rights and other issues that Bill holds dear.
The campaign is soon underway, and with no serious opposition to face, Bill is soon the Democratic nominee for Senate, name recognition helping him spring to the top of the ticket. (Bill is the son of John J McKay (Melvyn Douglas), the former Governor of California.) Lucas is hoping his candidacy will allow the Democratic Party to make a strong showing, even if they lose.
His first campaign meeting gets off to a rocky start, and when the first polls come in, the news is much worse. Lucas had expected him to lose, he tells Bill, but the polls suggest he will be humiliated. That wasn’t the plan.
And, so begins Bill’s ‘make-over’. He cannot be allowed to run loose and say whatever comes into his mind. He must only go where the consultants want him to go, only say what his speechwriters tell him to say… Everything is tailored to sell the candidate to the public.
Klein: “Now, for starters, we have to cut your hair and 86 the sideburns.”
Bill McKay: I'm for it. I think every woman should have that right.
Lucas: Ah, uh, wait a minute, Bill. You can't put it that way.
Bill McKay: That's what I think.
Lucas: Well, it's not going to be understood without a hell of a long explanation. So, eh, how about this for the time being? Uh, just say it's worth studying.
As a news anchor (based, we think, on the famous and respected Walter Cronkite) says of the change in Bill, “… candidates are selling themselves like underarm deodorant in commercials just long enough to pound in some meaningless slogan that cheapens both candidate and voter alike. Those early hard statements of his [McKay’s] are turning into mush. Specific policies dissolve into old generalities. Voters are asked to choose McKay the way they choose detergent.”
Robert Redford co-produced this film and, according to Jeremy Larner, the film’s scriptwriter, wanted it to be made very quickly so he could release it before the 1972 presidential elections. Larner, who had worked both as a journalist and as Senator Eugene McCarthy’s speech writer during his 1968 presidential campaign, knew the ins and outs of political campaigns. So did director Michael Ritchie, who had worked extensively on Senator John V Tunney’s senate campaign.
In fact, the character of Bill McKay that Redford plays was based partly on Tunney. The Senator’s campaign manager was the associate producer of this film. This helped the film depict the shenanigans of a political campaign, the machinations behind the scenes, the manipulation of the candidates, etc., with verisimilitude. Both Shalini and I have seen firsthand the chaos that surrounds an election campaign, yet this film was an eye-opener of sorts.
Shot almost like a documentary, it gives us a bird’s-eye view into the nitty-gritty details of an election campaign, warts and all. It allows us to see how a candidate who has ideas (and ideals) is soon ‘taken into hand’ and begins to parrot the party line, becoming yet another generic politician. McKay's idealism and conviction take a beating as the campaign runs on; he discovers that no one is really interested in making the country a better place. The eloquent lawyer turns into a man who stumbles over his words as he practices generic sound-bytes over and over again, and is finally overcome by laughter when faced with a farce disguised as a TV interview.
Redford, like Brad Pitt today, is often underestimated as an actor because of his sheer good looks. But he was a trained actor and wanted to do something more than play the blond bimbo – the usual sort of roles that came to him. Newman’s mentoring of him during the making of Butch Cassidy… would stand him in good stead when he went looking for ‘characters’ instead of roles. As Bill McKay, a successful lawyer who is persuaded to throw his hat into the ring to beat a popular three-term Senator from California, Redford uses his boyish charm to great effect. It cannot have been a coincidence that Redford is styled very much like John F Kennedy.
As a lawyer and a private citizen, he works hard for his community. McKay thus becomes a composite of Senator Tunney, Jerry Brown, the Secretary of State for California in 1970, and Redford himself. Redford’s environmental activism is very much a part of McKay’s character.Watch the scene where, alone in the back of the limousine, he practices his past speeches, the words all tumbling into one another as he gags or scoffs at the end of each quotable quote. It's a scorching indictment of the political landscape where how you look and what you wear, what you say and how you say it mean a whole lot more than any sound policy idea you may have. Redford's restrained and understated performance make him more of an 'every man' than 'hero', and that's to the film's benefit.
Don Porter plays Senator Crocker Jarmon, McKay’s Republican opponent, a veteran politician who knows exactly what to say, when and how. He infuses a smarminess into his character that belies his suave, dignified demeanour. He's dismissive of his younger opponent, is a proponent of the 'pull yourselves up by your bootstraps' ethic (which Republicans even today espouse, never mind that when it comes to their constituents, they demand a 'safety net'), and is certain that he will win his fourth term without any trouble.
As political strategist and advertising consultant, Peter Boyle and Allen Garfield are spot on in their characterisation. Both of them are hell bent on boxing their candidate into a mould, whether it fits him or not.
The Candidate was more understated than either of us had expected. When we discussed the film after the viewing, my opinion was that the film didn’t match the sum of its parts; I was vaguely dissatisfied. Shalini was more sanguine – she felt that Redford’s character was someone who got talked into doing something that quickly morphed into something else. And perhaps that was the point – that politics had become just a game.
I cannot deny that. What we see day in and day out in this country for the past decade, and especially this past year and a half, is that performative politics has come to stay. The louder you scream your lies, the more publicity you get, and the more you can divert the public’s attention from issues that matter.
Yet, if that were the case, I felt the film wasn’t as hard-hitting nor did it offer as biting a commentary on current affairs (of the 70s) as, say, All the President’s Men. I felt the film diluted its message, if indeed it had one. Shalini felt not. She saw it as a ‘slice of political life’ film; no big insights or revelations, just a glimpse of the politics behind the scenes.
Don’t get me wrong – I didn’t dislike the film. It was certainly an eye-opener to just how much the candidates are manipulated by their campaign staff, as much, if not more so, than the campaigns manipulate us, the voters. But, as I said, it left me vaguely dissatisfied. Shalini liked the film a little better than I did, but she, too, was expecting it to be far more entertaining, more cinematic. In her words, “It wasn’t particularly memorable.” I agreed, yet upon mulling over the film and my initial reaction to it, I am changing my mind about the film's message.
The Candidate is not entertainment; it wasn't made to be so. I think Redford made it to jolt people out of their apathy, and to force them to think whether these are the kind of leaders they want, need or deserve. In showing you how politics transforms an idealist into a cynic, and how the system ensures that you lose your identity to become someone you don't recognize, The Candidate certainly offers food for thought.
What also struck us both was how prescient this movie was in the issues that people consider important, and in how candidates and voters alike are manipulated by the puppeteers pulling their strings. It is a sobering thought that more than 5 decades later, nothing has changed except those who pull the strings.
In a world where white is black and vice versa, where Truth withers away in front of lies (that we know are lies!), where ‘patriotism’ becomes the armour behind which they wreak chaos and pure evil, I fear the lessons that films like The Candidate, All the President’s Men, Wag the Dog, Goodnight and Good Luck, etc., teach us have not just been not learnt, but have been deliberately ignored. It is ironic that, nearing the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, when ordinary citizens took up arms to rid themselves of an autocratic ruler, America seems to have elevated a cruel, vindictive, petty despot with visions of autocratic grandeur to the highest position in the land.
No comments:
Post a Comment