The Ides of March Has Intricate Twists and Turns that Keep the Audience Interested

Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 22/02/2012

I had already planned on watching 'The Ides of March' when I saw that it had received a sole nomination for Adapted Screenplay at this year's Academy Awards. Intrigued, I finally sat down to watch it this evening.

The film takes place during and after the Ohio Primary debate between two Democratic Presidential candidates. The story follows Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) and his campaign team led by Paul Zara (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) with second-in-command Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling). Morris' campaign is all about bringing the United States of America back to the state that it used to be in - the leading technological country in the world. Stephen is an ideal communicator for Morris - he believes in Morris, his ideals and his beliefs - and, he's brilliant at his job.

Things, however, never remain calm for long. Soon Stephen is offered a choice concerning his career; his belief is shaken when he learns of an unlikely secret, and some of the team's strategies are found wanting.

One would expect a political drama to be boring, talky, and at a tangent to ones own thinking. This film is none of those. The pace is perfect - I wasn't bored for a second. I think it also helped that I agreed with a lot of Morris' ideals (apparently they hold true to Clooney's ideals as well). When, at one point, I believed I knew where this story was headed, a sudden twist (which, perhaps, other people saw coming, but I did not) made sure that I remained glued to my seat.

Having said that, going by the trailer, and the name of the film, I believed that this was a story of two people being pitted against each other. I was expecting Stephen to turn tail any moment during the film, but that is not how the story goes. It didn't have a huge bearing on how I viewed the film, but I think it's indicative of how film promotion is done these days - it is almost always misleading. The name, too, can be misleading - no "Et tu, Brute?" moments here, and there don't need to be either.

Where this film falters is the acting. I seem to complain about acting often, and I am beginning to wonder if I am just a poor judge of this. The greatly admired Ryan Gosling strikes again, and he does a fine job as long as he isn't required to emote. Moment he does - he does so badly. There is a particular scene, following which I could notice nothing but his acting, that drove home the fact that he is occasionally overrated. In the scene Stephen is talking to Evan Rachel Wood's character, intern Molly Stearns. She tells him something that apparently shocks him - well, I assume that's what is happening. He looks at her with big eyes that should be conveying shock and horror, but all it's doing is conveying 'goofy'. Seriously! It is the poorest instance of acting by a talented actor that I have ever seen. After that I couldn't not watch his every move with a hawk's eye. I don't know what it is; several people have proclaimed him unlucky on account of missing out on an Oscar nomination for not one but two roles (this one and 'Drive'), but I really do not see how he could have got a nomination at all. I have mentioned his inability to emote before. But I fear I may subconsciously have some bone to pick with him, which is why I constantly notice (or imagine) his poor emoting skills. Perhaps I owe him an apology on behalf of my subconscious. Surely the world cannot be wrong and me right!

The one person I cannot make excuses for is Evan Rachel Wood. How does she keep getting roles? That too alongside big names? However, I've noticed that she usually plays small roles in ensemble casts (or those are the ones I've heard of). This role is no different. She cannot act - and you couldn't pay me a million dollars to say that she can. She is terrible! She immediately takes me out of a film with her atrocious acting - it is disappointing.

I was surprised by how small a role Clooney has. He does his job - not much is required of him. I was surprised to see how old he looks, though. I don't know where the fascination for his looks comes from. He is a talented actor (and in this film's case, I reckon a good director as well), but I fail to see where beauty comes in. But that's just me! The rest of the cast do a fine job. Marisa Tomei as a journalist is good, but she looked rather odd to me.

Had the acting been spot on, this film would have been fantastic, but it falls short on that account, which is a pity. It probably has an outside chance of winning in its category, on account of the fact that Clooney has the lead writing credit. But most likely it will lose out to the favoured 'The Descendants' (another Clooney-starrer, read my review for it here), though my fingers are still crossed for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy'. 

Comments