IF YOU'RE READING THIS AND HAVEN'T VOTED YET....THIS POST WILL STILL BE HERE BY THE TIME YOU GET BACK! GO VOTE!!!
Election (1999):
I found this 90s classic to be worth the hype that preceded it, but maybe not for the same reasons as others. Election is a film that will likely always sustain relevancy because as generations of politics and politicians evolve and change so does the way you apply the modern-day political landscape to the world of the film. Having already watched the first two seasons of Ryan Murphy's debut Netflix Series The Politician, it was quite evident that the hyper-realized world of that series has some source of inspiration that leads back to Alexander Payne's film. Though only about a high school election, the stakes of the film feel so high because the director is able to immerse you into the world of the characters in such an intimate way, right down to exposing us to one of the most intimate moments of many human's existence, nightly prayers. Although, the way these characters pray makes many of them feel as though they are parodying the faux-Christians that currently crowd the Alt-Right movement of this country with their false sincerity and self-aggrandizing undertones. Over the years, obvious comparisons have been made to Reese Witherspoon's classic character, Tracy Flick and Hilary Clinton, but I found myself even more interested in the comparisons that can be drawn between Tammy Meltzer and the Orange President of the United States, at least at the time this is being typed. Tammy and Orange-Loaf both aren't interested in politics or leaving some substantial mark in the history books for the betterment of others. Their desires are much more internalized. They are angry. And they both recognize that this anger can be utilized, magnetized to polarize the social climate to their advantages ultimately. Both run for office under the guise of "renegades", Tammy is just the more honest of the two. She doesn't care if you recognize her true intentions or even if she wins, so long as she's shaken the system and caused some disorder along the way. Then again, Tammy doesn't owe money to any foreign powers, at least the film's narrative never suggests as much. Who then does Jim McAllister represent as our protagonist. For me, his representation shifts as the plot evolves. He is both at times, the swing voter (much like Lisa) and also the corrupt system that elects illegitimate or otherwise undeserving candidates to elected office. He's the former, because of his bias in the electoral process itself by cheating. Jim's reasons for not wanting Tracy to win are completely shallow. She might very well be annoying, but she's also obviously qualified for the position, however imperfect she may be. While her tearing down the posters is wrong, she's only brought to do that because of McAllister's selfish actions hid underneath an attempt to even out the playing field and allow more students to run. He is the voter that enters the booth deciding that "So and So doesn't smile enough" or "So and So is just too mean" without actually having an informed opinion about policy motivating their reason for filling in one box over another. When he distorts the results, he is Russia, he is lobbyists, and he is gerrymandering and voter suppression all wrapped into one depraved and pathetic individual. Whatever you may think of Jim and the Mark of Cain he gets in the form of a bee sting to the eyelid for his many misdeeds, or any of the characters by the end of the film, it is the final line that rings the most truth out of anything said into a microphone, written on a torn poster or even transcribed onto a cupcake throughout the entire film: "What's great about American is we can always start over." Here's hoping Jim.
Recount (2008):
In this current election cycle, this film practically qualifies as a horror film. Recount details the political fallout of the 2000 Presidential Race which involved a recount occurring in several Florida counties that proved critical in deciding whether George W. Bush or Al Gore would be the next President of the United States. The film has been criticized in the past for positioning the Democrats as its obvious protagonist and thereby, victims to the conflict at the center of the piece. However, this is a rather narrow-minded viewpoint as the film divides its time quite liberally (no pun intended) between showing the internal operations of both the Democrats and Republicans. It isn't as if Democrats were fighting only to have Democratic votes counted. They were trying to ensure that every Floridian's voice was heard at the polls. In fact, Republicans who worked on the recount have said in the past that the film depicts a fairly accurate portrayal of the tactics, ruthless as they were, that was utilized to ensure that a second Bush would be entering the Oval Office in January 2001. The film was the first to teach me at such a young age what voter suppression is and in an exceptionally gut-wrenching scene, the negative effect it predominately has on African Americans and the formerly incarcerated. Because the film centers so much on the procedural issues concerning the recount we don't get to see much in terms of the public's dealing with such a historical hiccup of Democracy. Right now, with the impending dread of a potential Supreme Court Case deciding this election as they did in 2000, social media has allowed us to have more direct access to the concerns of the masses that partisan bullhorns will snuff out their voices and votes from being heard and cast respectably. It features a fantastic, award-winning supporting performance by Laura Dern as Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State for Florida at the time. Though we should be avoiding Kevin Spacey films as much as we can, especially when they concern ironic themes of morality and justice being squandered by corruption and wealthy privilege, he too gives an effective performance as the film's protagonist, Ron Klain, Gore's Chief of Staff during this fiasco. The lessons we learned from this experience will no doubt be tested in the coming days and weeks and here is hoping that if Jay Roach does have to make a film about the 2020 Election, that it's ending is able to have a much more optimistic look at the electoral and legislative systems in this country than Recount.
Swing Vote (2008)
Arguably the only film on this list that positions its protagonist outside of the political/electoral sphere. In fact, Kevin Costner's Bud Johnson doesn't even cast the uncounted vote which causes the humorously chaotic plot from unfolding. This is a film about voters more than about the people we vote for. A recently unemployed alcoholic in New Mexico, Bud's intelligent and passionate daughter Molly decides to cast his Presidential vote for him when the voting machine falters, and the entire election comes down to Bud's single, uninterested, vote. The two ambitious candidates played by Kelsey Grammer and Dennis Hopper and their even more ambitious campaign managers played by Stanley Tucci and Nathan Lane respectively go through exorbitant lengths to win over a voter who didn't even know who was running in the first place. Apparently, Molly is the .0000000008% chance of voter fraud that happens every 40 years or so that we've been overlooking while worrying about the veracity of mail-in ballots. Every actor and actress in the film manages to evoke enough humanity to prevent the material from becoming too farcical, with Grammer and Hopper suffering the most by trying not to seem like horny contestants on a politically-oriented spin-off of "The Bachelorette." For a modern viewing, it doesn't help that Hopper's character, who is the Democratic nominee, is named, of all things, "Donald." The film contains a subplot with a journalist hungry for career-advancement and the truth, and not necessarily in that order. "This isn't journalism. This is television" declares George Lopez as a television station manager and her boss in a line of dialogue that has aged about as well as fruit left in the hot sun. The film explores through its improbable premise the issue of politicians catering to the voters rather than relating to them on a substantive level. We see this exemplified beautifully through several ad campaigns filmed throughout to appeal to what they perceive to be Bud's evolving political stances on various important topics. This includes an abortion ad involving children disappearing in a poof on a playground that is so funny, even staunch Pro-Lifers could get a kick out of it (probably not), and a more dated and rather offensive immigration ad that looks like something Trump would've shot if we actually believed he felt comfortable around a lot of Hispanics at once. While Molly is often portrayed as the young voice of reason, that doesn't mean she is always right. In one critical scene, while arguing with her father for feeding into the fire that the two candidates are trying to set under his butt in order to sway his vote their way, Molly claims that Bud is ruining America with his selfish actions. It isn't Bud that's ruined America; however, he's just exploiting an already polluted political and electoral process. His transformation into a concerned and informed voter may feel a bit contrived but so is the American Dream that includes the notion that the only motive a voter walks into the voting booth with is what they believe is best for the country as a whole, not just themselves. Swing Vote acknowledges the flawed system, the corruption on both sides of the aisle to be convincingly performative rather than effectively committed in their actions on the campaign trail doesn't give us all the answers on how to make things better for both ourselves and the country, but it does make it fairly clear that a good place to start is the voting booth itself.
With comedians in the last several years becoming a surprisingly reliable and thought-provoking source of news and provocative commentary on current events, is it that much of a stretch to imagine what it would be like to have one elected as the next President of The United States? The problem with Man of The Year, unlike the other films on this list, is that it fails to focus enough time and attention upon its titular figure and instead becomes pre-occupied with the conspiracy that got him elected because after all, American's are way too jaded to ever majority vote outside of the political norm. Laura Linney gives an effective performance as a guilt-ridden tech worker who learns that her company's faulty voting machines have resulted in an entertainment figure winning the electoral college. The movie, however, becomes more about her and her mission to get the truth to the man soon to inherit the keys to the imperfect kingdom, in this case, Robin Williams, as funny as ever despite the film's numerous faults, rather than about how such a nomination could rightfully shake-up a system that has after over 200 years become stagnant to the true duties it owes to its citizens. Then again, maybe we should be careful with this logic as it sounds uncomfortably similar to the mentality of many voters who went red in 2016 to give the Presidency to a businessman to "shake things up" a bit. Then again, while Tom Dobbs was a successful television personality and political commentator before running, the current President was a bankrupt supposed billionaire. Yes, that logic might itself be a stretch, but what logic isn't these days? Man of the Year spends too much time trying to figure out if it's a political comedy, a thriller or a romance, but while it is sorting all that out across the screen it also presents us with an interesting look at how blurred the worlds of celebrity and politics would eventually become and how the most frightening conspiracy theories aren't about sex-trafficking inside pizzerias, but the notion that our vote can be corrupted, discarded or otherwise compromised at a set-price with little to no regard for the democratic or moral implications.
Jay Roach returned to HBO four years after the critical success of Recount to tell what is essentially a political reimagining of A Star is Born with narrative undertones akin to what you'd find in a psychological drama directed by Hitchcock at his creative peak. Though the film tells the story behind how Sarah Palin became the vice-presidential nominee of John McCain, much like Swing Vote the film's central core is a critique of the style-over-substance attitude that has become pervasive in our political system in the United States for far too long. It is an issue that affects both liberals and conservatives. Julianne Moore's performance as Palin is a tour-de-force not simply because of her physical resemblance but her commitment to examining the woman behind the punchline that Palin ultimately became, and still is, in pop culture. Sarah Paulson and Woody Harrelson shine nearly as bright in supporting roles as members of the McCain team attempting to wrangle a loose pit bull with lipstick, which are words Palin has self-described herself with before, as Moore does in the movie itself. Ed Harris gives a decent enough supporting role as John McCain but never captures the character with the same sense of mesmerizing aplomb that Moore is able to achieve so quickly. Palin's delusions of granduer are eerily reminiscent of the current President who she'd eventually enthusiastically endorse while contradicting everything she supposedly admired about her former running mate, John McCain. While the movie teeters on becoming the love child of a Behind The Music Special cross-bred with a Lifetime Movie, it is an entertaining watch nonetheless for those of us who miss the days when politics could be laughed at without the tinge of somber-severity that has become standard practice now when reflecting on the current political climate.
