The Ides of March (2011)

A winning candidate

by Michael Augsberger - Originally published 10 Dec 2019

Let's start with the title. Much has been said about it. Is George Clooney reaching too far to compare the machinations in his film to those of Brutus and Cassius? I would say, well, that was the most powerful empire on earth then, and that was how the sausage was made. This is the most powerful nation on earth now, and this is how ours gets made.

Ryan Gosling plays the suave lead surrounded by juggernauts—the even suaver Clooney as Mike Morris running for the Democratic nomination and employing Stephen Meyers (Gosling) as his No. 3 behind Philip Seymour Hoffman as Paul Zara; Marisa Tomei as a voracious reporter he must feed and spar with; and Paul Giamatti managing the rival candidate's campaign. Evan Rachel Wood also turns in a fine performance that has to be both vulnerable and confidently sexy. That's a lot of big players. Acting is not going to be a liability for this film.

We're in March, primary season, and down to just two Democrats. Lecture hall debates and basketball arena interviews at Miami and Xavier can only mean one thing: Ohio is up for grabs. Mike Morris enters with a lead in the polls, but it's a tenuous one, especially if the other side can nab race dropout Senator Thompson's endorsement. Stephen has a ton of experience despite his youth, but he's a true believer in Morris' potential to improve the country. Now the enemy campaign manager Tom Duffy (Giamatti) asks Stephen for a secret meeting.

What could the opponent possibly want? Is this a Hail Mary thrown by a losing side desperate to sow discontent in Morris' ranks? Might Duffy want Stephen to work for him? Or perhaps Stephen can glean some intel that could help his own man in Ohio. It's curiosity, not greed or ambition or even job security, that leads him to sit down with Duffy. "I can't tell you how many times a Democrat has lost because he refused to get down in the mud with the Elephants," Duffy tells him.

We'll have no Elephants here, but plenty of mud. It's all Democrat-on-Democrat crime. How dirty is Stephen willing to get for his candidate, and is that answer any different when it's for himself?

Many have mentioned Drive in reference to Gosling's performance here. He has nailed once again the quiet, contemplative, calculating character still brimming with charm and skill. I see their Drive and raise with The Ghost Writer, where similarly the big name playing the charismatic politician surrenders screen time to his writer. We see Clooney here sparingly, and like Pierce Brosnan in that film, his presence dominates while the other characters scramble to please, bolster, or challenge him. Morris pervades their thoughts. He pervades Stephen's.

So while Clooney admirers like me may clamor for more, it is the right dose. The focus in both remains on the associate's moral journey and the destruction it wreaks. Roman Polanski allows his writer to keep his integrity, but the cynic in him says the world cannot withstand that kind of honesty. Clooney the director, no less cynical, says something different with Stephen.

It's vapid just to be cynical about our electoral process. There's more than that here. Clooney isn't exploring American political morals as much as he's writing an essay on loyalty and placing idealism on trial. Yes, the repartee really does thrill; I admired a number of turns of dialogue. Couple that with smart politicians and aides all surveying the constantly changing situation and selecting the Adam Smith-approved choice. For them, for their candidate, for their party, for their country—the real heart of the film lies in the Venn diagrams made up of those categories. What is self-interest, and what is selfish? The lines blur, and Clooney so often shows us close-ups of characters thinking, slowly, to identify those lines and ultimately to win the White House, but also to square the depravity they're headed into with their previous relative purity.

In Philadelphia we like to recall an egocentric athlete who, to those who questioned his drive, replied, "For who? For what?" Only we can decide how long to remain devoted to a decaying subject and how far will we go for the cause or for ourselves. Those are the questions of loyalty that Ides delves into. Almost everyone slides from worthy to somehow defiled, and each character must choose whether, how, and from whom to cut ties. Zara's stirring polemic, although delivered by a shrewd, battle-weary veteran, provides the film's idealistic dream, a picture of what Stephen once aspired to. Zara may judge correctly, but he disregards that loyalty works in reverse order, too. Just ask any Enron employee.

And how refreshing the story steers clear of House of Cards violence. If you decide to silence someone for good, you're admitting you couldn’t defeat them in the political game. Moral decay starts at toxic levels much less concentrated than that. And having a front-row seat for that process can be even more enthralling when done right.

All of this is going to play out within the rules. It is much more satisfying that way. I don’t want to see the Rose Bowl decided by an act that would get someone executed, either. The drama of the political game remains intact.

3 1/2 of 4