From the moment a soothsayer warns Julius Caeser to “Beware the Ides of March,” the marriage of politics and assassination were forever canonized in eternal lines. And, in what might exemplify the upcoming season of Oscarbation, The Ides of March is star-studded, characteristically well-acted and brims with tension that is slightly reminiscent of scenes from 1998’s Bulworth.
At the denouement of a tense race for the Democratic nomination, Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) and Senator Pullman (Michael Mantell) both serve as faces of the machines for Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), campaign managers for the respective candidates. After a sound check run by Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling), in which he rattles off the campaign speech that Morris will echo in only a few moments, newspaper headlines pass along the screen, informing the audience how deadlocked the race is, essentially making Ohio the deciding state for both candidates.
Clooney, who also directed and had a hand in the screenplay, fits the criteria of a presidential candidate. Morris’ silver hair is suavely manicured, and his granite chin shines with conviction as his darkened eyes bespeak a compassion for the working class. As a director, Clooney is adequate and helps to create the tension organically as opposed to hyperbolically. At the same time, his hand in the screenplay makes The Ides of March a confusing project that undulates between an earnest study in duplicity and political nefariousness (shocking, right?) and a Democratic obloquy on the Republican party.
In truth, I’m not against castigating ultra conservatives and their ilk; however, I’m also not against lambasting ultra-left ideologues who honestly believe we can all get along. The Ides of March has much more of the former and, by default, creates the latter. As Stevie (whose diminutive name bespeaks his initially ignorant, but evidently fleeting, ideologies) meets Tom, the campaign manager of his competition, he seems taken aback by Tom’s request that Stevie jump ship and come to the other side that has orchestrated a subterfuge to prevent Morris from winning Ohio and ultimately the Democratic nomination – a tactic that Duffy proclaims embodies the “getting your guy into office” M.O. of politics, but which Myers decries as “the kind of shit Republicans pull.” However, Stevie’s reaction is incongruous with his previous proclamation that he’s “worked on more campaigns than most people before they’re forty.” Is it plausible to believe that Myers has never been faced with this sort of deviousness?
Perhaps Myers’ disbelief stems from his admiration of Morris, a man whose infallible sincerity and charm define him. But, in this faux-ignorance comes another flaw in the film: if someone seems infallible, the skeletons in their closet with ultimately be uncovered and tumble to the floor.
In a political thriller (?) this is expected, and it seems silly not to foresee it in the most recent addition to this genre. At the same time, the skeleton itself is produced in a rather cliché arc and then coupled with another cliché to exacerbate it, only to wind up in a cliché cubed that more closely resembles a soap opera than a film packed with Oscar winners (3: Clooney, Hoffman, Tomei) and nominees (2: Giamatti, Gosling). And, when all of this comes to a head, the formerly ignorant and noble Myers must decide between becoming duplicitous to survive in the political battlefield, or give up his career and become a consultant at a firm that pays $750,000 a year.
Given the title of the film, it’s rather clear which one he picks, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with the decision, but it’s apparent a mile away, and it clearly exemplifies Zara’s (Hoffman) assertion that loyalty is “is the only currency you can count on” and “without it, you are nothing.” I suppose the meta-question at the end becomes “who should you be most loyal to” in an arena endemically ripe with envy, paranoia, and carnage?
This film will be nominated for Oscars, and might even garner a statuette for Gosling or the long-deserving Giamatti. It’s also appropriately timed given the current political polarization of our country. However, in the end, The Ides of March is more reminiscent of a well-woven speech that has all the showy, sentimental symbols that people swoon for, but it’s best not to let superficially pithy lines delivered by solid actors mask the fluff that lies underneath. Perhaps Brutus was correct to warn that “a soothsayer bids you beware The Ides of March.”
