Film Review: The Contender

 "The Contender"

*** (out of ****)

One of the reasons I was excited about dubbing this year, "Was I Right?" - a year long re-examination of my previous individual Top Ten choices throughout the years - is that it would allow me to revisit movies like "The Contender" (2000), which I haven't   watched since it was released in theaters.

When I initially saw "The Contender" I eagerly declared it one of the year's best movies - placing it in the number two spot behind "Gladiator" (2000) - and felt the movie was highlighted by a knockout performance from Joan Allen.  Allen, I believed, would be Julia Roberts' - appearing in "Erin Brockovich" (2000) - only competition for the Best  Actress  Academy  Award that year.

In anticipation of this review I watched "The Contender" three times. Something wasn't sitting well with me. To answer the question of was I right about the movie, the short answer is no. But why wasn't I enjoying the movie? What was preventing me? The obvious answer was politics.

"The Contender", directed by movie critic turned filmmaker, Rod Lurie, may want to transport us back to American cinema of the 1960s and '70s to political movies such as "All the President's Men" (1976), "The Candidate" (1972), "Advise and Consent" (1962), and "3 Days of the Condor" (1975) but it can't match those movies despite its best intentions. One of the problems is Lurie is too heavy handed in his political messaging. The movie's techniques would actually play well today as  American "artists" are too often creating political creeds instead of focusing on good storytelling. The "mission" of a movie like "The Contender" is not so much to entertain us as it is to persuade us. It feels as if Lurie wasn't concerned with artistic merit but rather concocting left-wing propaganda. The message overwhelms the movie and quite frankly tested my patience. 

Released two years after the political spectacle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment, "The Contender" was meant to be a rebuttal with an identity politics twist. This time it would be a female Democratic senator caught in the middle of a sex scandal. With the political air being what it was in 2000, the "good" Democrat position at the time was to stand behind Clinton and rinse, wash, and repeat their talking point, it wasn't about lying, it was about sex. Although I was 17 when "The Contender" was released, I grew up in what could be described as a working-class Democratic household. I heard my parents and grandparents argue with the TV and profess Clinton's innocence against a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Growing up in such a household, my family's politics rubbed off on me. Watching a movie like "The Contender" back in 2000 was like singing to the choir. Of course I ate up Rod Lurie's defense of Clinton and his attacks on Republican politicians. It's not that my personal politics have necessarily changed but "The Contender" hasn't aged well as the political Left has moved away from the Liberal Ideals offered in this movie. I have also come to resent cheapening the artistic artform of cinema as a tool for political propaganda. 

While there is no way Lurie or the country could have possibly known what would come in the years ahead, "The Contender" was almost a warning of the circus freak show American politics has become today thanks to ring leaders like Donald Trump. At the end of  "The Contender", Jeff Bridges as President Jackson Evans gives a self-righteous, moral grandstanding speech, admonishing members of Congress stating the level of hate has risen to such a degree that we can not distinguish between demagogue and the truly inspired. I don't know if Lurie had Huey Long in mind when he wrote that speech or Newt Gingrich but it sure as heck describes charlatans like Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Barack Obama. 

The movie was also prophetical in it's left-wing identity politics with its basic premise of Senator Laine Hanson (Allen) being the president's choice for VP after the previous Vice-President died three weeks ago. President Evans wants to have the legacy of nominating the first female as VP. It may be his last major decision. Fast forward to 2020 and then candidate Joe Biden made a promise to pick a woman as his running mate. Two years later, now President Biden went a step further and promised to select a black woman as his choice for Supreme Court judge.

It is this blatant kowtowing to identity politics that Illinois Republican Congressmen Sheldon Runyon (Gary Oldman) rejects. However, the movie also hints that his real motivation may be sexism. In a very powerful scene Hanson meets with Runyon as he lays all of his cards on the table and reveals he finds Hanson's selfishness detestable. He claims Hanson wants to take on a job that positions her to assume gigantic responsibility knowing full well she is not ready. It probably wasn't the movie's intention but I cheered such a declaration. If that is what selfishness is, it describes practically every individual that runs for office or currently serves. Imagine, I thought, if we as a society held candidates to such a standard. Runyon goes on to suggest Hanson lacks the promise of greatness.

As the word greatness lingers in the air the very next scene has a young Democratic Representative, Webster (Christian Slater) in the White House, staring at Presidential portraits. "Patriotic" music swells in the background, implying these men represent the "greatness" Runyon spoke of. Webster has been causing problems for the President and Sen. Hanson. He refuses to be a yes man and support Hanson's nomination, joining forces with Runyon on the confirmation committee. The President has invited Webster to the White House for a "meeting". Webster is making a mess, the President lectures, of his plans for confirmation. The President would like Webster to "lay off. As a personal favor". A conversation begins about Webster's age with the implication Webster is a young man following his heart. "I envy you" says the President as he explains because one day Webster will be with his family in the White House, staring at a portrait of President Evans. Webster will be able to tell his children way back then he defied his president even though it cost him his reelection and any chance he had at making a difference in the country. It sounds like the kind of thing you would hear in a 1940s movie with a gangster character telling a store owner that won't pay up, "it would be an awful thing if something should happen to you."

That sentiment is also at the heart of Lurie's movie. Webster is young and naïve. He lacks the wisdom that comes with age and the understanding if you want to succeed in politics you must acquiesce to your party's demands. Politics is about incremental change. That was a song voters heard Democrats sings in 2016 and 2020 as they were told Sen. Bernie Sander's vision was a "pipe dream". What is so telling about Lurie's position is we have two characters claiming to stand on principles - Webster and Hanson - and yet the movie determines only one of them has "correct" principles and, spoiler alert, it isn't the young optimist. The idealists must "gain the wisdom" to come around and accept their place. Was this Lurie's way of shaming Democrat voters that didn't stand by Clinton or might contemplate voting for George W. Bush, who promised to restore honor and dignity to the White House?

In order to take down Sen. Hanson, Runyon and his minions investigate Hanson's past believing information has turned up that will embarrass Hanson, leading her to officially withdraw her nomination. When Hanson was in college, in order to enter a sorority, she allegedly participated in a gang-bang. Masquerading moral outrage, Runyon rebukes an on-line article on the incident during the committee hearing. In the name of fairness he allows Hanson the opportunity to denounce the article as well. She however doesn't take the bait. Her position is it is beneath her to comment on such a thing. It is no ones business if the story is true or false. 

It is around this point in "The Contender" I began to roll my eyes. I couldn't take the moral superiority message Lurie keeps hammering us with. If Lurie wanted his story to be another "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" (1939) he failed miserably because he doesn't understand Capra's genius. "Mr. Smith" was also about a man with principles and it had a dark side but Capra made us feel good not only about ourselves but America too. He gave us something universal to believe in. "The Contender" is too partisan. It wants to be a "feel good" movie but because of its divisive characters and message it can never pull off such a feat. Take for example a scene where Hanson gives a speech during the committee hearing. It comes near the end of the movie as Hanson has been lectured by the President that now is the time to fight back against Runyon. Her speech is a laundry list of Democratic policies that she believes in. That same cornball "patriotic" music swells to a fever pitch as she speaks. Clearly the movie endorses these policies and the music is suppose to make the viewer support these ideas too. Why should we support them? Because dang it, they are American ideas! But it is just your standard list of Democrat ideas on issues like gun control and abortion. How is that going to bring an audience together and make us proud to be Americans? Capra wouldn't do that.

By and large "The Contender" is only playing to Democrat voters. In Stephen Holden's New York Times review he summed it up like this, ""The Contender" makes no bones about where its political sympathies lie. It is essentially a pro-Clinton editorial in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal and an angry brief against what it calls "sexual McCarthyism" and the dragging of private consensual sex into the public arena.". And even after acknowledging such, Holden still recommended the movie. Richard Roeper, by then the new official replacement of Gene Siskel, listed "The Contender" among his favorite movies of 2000, in the number four spot. Roger Ebert awarded the movie four stars in his Chicago Sun-Times  review and wrote "Whether you are in sympathy with the movie may depend on which you found more disturbing: The questions of the Starr commission, or Clinton's attempts to avoid answering them."

I don't have anything against a movie having a point of view, even a partisan one. But the movie must also be entertaining and well told. I loved Ken Loach's "I, Daniel Blake" (2017) and "Sorry, We Missed You" (2020). Loach is a Socialist and both movies are examples of excellent Leftist filmmaking. I put each movie at the top of my year end list in their respective years. But even with their Leftist tendencies those movies could have universal appeal. Both movies were about a political and economic system that beats down the working man. Every character in those movies was more sympathetic than the one Joan Allen plays here.

While the movie has Hanson's character take the moral high ground and not answer questions about her sex life, Lurie's script certainly wants us to equate her with sex and firmly believe she would have indeed engaged in such activities in college. Before we see Sen. Hanson we keep hearing her name spoken by the President.  He has already determined he wants Hanson as his vice-president. We just naturally assume Hanson must be a male senator. In the next scene we see the naked legs of a man and woman having sex. The phone rings and we hear her plead with the man not to answer the phone. He does but still has his pants down. He offers the phone to the woman, saying the president wants to talk to you. She answers by saying "Hello. Senator Hanson". It is supposed to be an "ah-ha" moment. Senator Hanson is a woman! And she is not just a woman. She is a woman that has wild sex on top of a desk. Kinky!

Not only has my appreciation of the movie as a whole lessen, but so too has my appreciation of Joan Allen's performance. During this time in Allen's career, I firmly regarded her as one of the finest actresses on the screen. While I didn't care much for Oliver Stone's "Nixon" (1995), I thought Allen was wonderful. I was also impressed with her in Ang Lee's "The Ice Storm" (1997) - another movie I plan on reviewing this year. "The Contender" simply solidified her brilliance. But all three times I watched the movie before reviewing it, I wasn't connecting to her character. I felt Hanson was merely symbolic of a political message but never a person. Never someone relatable. Not flesh and blood. 

I had also initially thought Gary Oldman delivered an Oscar worthy performance as Runyon but now feel the movie goes too over the top to make him a villain. In one scene he describes Hanson as being a "cancer of liberalism. A cancer of affirmative action". It is meant to present him as an extreme right-wing fanatic. How much better of a movie could "The Contender" have been if it was really a movie about ideas? What if Runyon was an actual character expressing Conservative points of view and Hanson argued the Liberal position? By approaching these characters the way Lurie does, he makes it too simplistic of a tale about good versus evil.

In addition to this there is some nonsense about an investigation into the death of a woman who drowned when her car drove off of a bridge and a politician - a potential VP pick (William Petersen) - failed to save her life. Although many view his attempted rescue as heroic there is someone going around asking questions about the incident.

This may be why some foolishly call "The Contender" a "political thriller". This is not a thriller. There is nothing thrilling about this movie. There is no suspense and no real concern about the death of the woman. Much like the contrast established between Webster and Hanson regarding their principles, this scenario with Petersen's character is meant to counter Hanson's in terms of heroics. Hanson, you see, is a "hero" for not only standing up for her principles but also for standing up to Republicans like Runyon and exhibiting courage under fire.

Finally there is Jeff Bridges' performance as President Evans. Bridges is a likable actor and that comes across onscreen. There isn't much for him to do dramatically but Bridges seems to be having fun with the character. He is preoccupied with trying to stump the White House chef with his Liberal Elite palate. He seems to enjoy the perks of being president but we don't sense much else about him. What could be this character's background story? Some have tried to compare the character to Clinton.

If there was anything I liked watching "The Contender" for it was probably not what Rod Lurie wanted me to come away feeling. For me, the movie exposes what a rotten system American politics is. And yet these characters almost seem to relish the back and forth fighting. Notice how Lurie often has characters playing sports - basketball, tennis, and bowling - because politics is a sport to these people. They enjoy the backroom deals and pretending they are fighting for worthwhile causes. There was a character played by Saul Rubinek I couldn't quite figure out. He plays an aide to the President but in one scene with Runyon I can't tell if he sold out the President or is playing Runyon like a piano. 

The movie seems somewhat knowledgeable about political history and appears to be taking place in a time that feels current. In this make believe world Bill Clinton did exist and is referenced as is his impeachment. President Evans has been in office for six-and-a-half years. Is this an imaginary 2007? Did Evans succeed Clinton in office? Could Al Gore have been the model for Bridges character?

Unfortunately, after all these years, I must admit  I was wrong about "The Contender". It is not a movie that holds up well. The year 2000 was an awful year for movies but I will go back and rewatch titles to see if I can come up with a replacement for this movie on my top ten list. Despite what my feelings are the movie earned two Academy Award nominations for its acting. One for Best Actress (Allen) and Best Supporting Actor (Bridges).

In the end "The Contender" is a heavy handed piece of left-wing propaganda. It seems to be knowing in the ways of politics and in spite of its intentions actually works best as a damnation of the entire political system.

Film Review: Places in the Heart - 40th Anniversary

 "Places in the Heart"

**** (out of ****)

In some ways writer / director Robert Benton's "Places in the Heart" (1984) is the 1980s version of  "Gone with the Wind" (1939), the sprawling epic of, among other things, a woman's survival and growth into a different definition of  "womanhood".

Sally Field's Edna Spalding doesn't have the pizazz of Scarlett O'Hara - the iconic character portrayed by Vivien Leigh - but she has the same grit, the same sense of obstinance in the face of adversity. 

Both women lose the love of their lives. While Scarlett foolishly pined for Ashley Wilkes, Edna loses her husband Royce (Ray Baker) - a small Texas town sheriff - in an unfortunate gun accident. Alone and on the verge of poverty, Edna must find a way to keep her home and raise her two children, Possum (Gennie James) and Frank (Yankton Hatten). 

Although both "Gone with the Wind" and "Places in the Heart" take place in two distinct eras - the Civil War and the Great  Depression respectively - each woman is a "victim" of the time period's social politics. Edna has no "skills" other than taking care of her home and raising children. Royce was the sole financial provider and paid the bills. Edna doesn't know how much money her husband made or even how to fill out a check (!). By the end of  "Places in the Heart" Edna will not only learn how to fill out a check but become a much different, stronger woman. Each film creates female characters representative of their historic time period to make a commentary on the then current state of social politics. Edna and Scarlett don't necessarily feel like old fashion women. They are women of the 1930s and '80s respectively.

It is possible however none of this was the intention of Robert Benton. Benton based much of the film on his own memories of his youth. As a title I initially thought "Places in the Heart" referred to romantic love, instead I think it refers to what is dear to our heart, both places and people. A  sense of community.

With its Depression era setting the film is a telling of hardship, perseverance, family, community, and love. It can be interpreted as the story of America or as New York Times film critic Vincent Canby described it, "Robert Benton has made one of the best films in years about growing up American." However could films like "Places in the Heart" also be critiques of Ronald Reagan's America? It was a time when Reagan asked the country if they were better off than they were four years prior. And while for many people the answer to that question was a resounding yes - Reagan won re-election with a commanding 49 state win - it is worth noting there was a small parade of similar themed movies released in 1984 alone - "Places in the Heart", "Country", and "The River". Legendary New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael once referred to them as the "rural trilogy". Even the post-Siskel & Ebert version of the PBS movie review program Sneak Previews aired a special episode on how Hollywood looks at the working class. These movies and Hollywood's attitude may have been a reflection of the rough economic times of the early  80s, when Reagan's policies put the country in a recession in 1981. Even by the near end of 1984, unemployment was at a stubborn high of 7.3%, as pointed out in this New York Times article published two days before the election.

In addition to social class, "Places in the Heart" broaches another important topic, race. Quickly after the burial of her husband and learning about the large debt still owed to the bank, Edna meets a black man named Moses (Danny Glover). He goes around from house to house willing to work for food. After noticing all the acres of land Edna's home sits on, Moses proposes helping Edna grow cotton. Desperate, Edna agrees but considering the amount owed to the bank, it will be a Herculean feat to pick enough cotton to pay off the bank.

There is a powerful scene when Moses is attacked by the Ku Klux Klan, meant to demonstrate the harsh realities of the times. Nevertheless the scene comes out of left field. Nothing has lead up to this dramatic moment. Outside of a scene when the sheriff informs Edna he found Moses with her silverware (he stole it from her), we never see the townspeople react to Edna employing a black man. Once in a while a character will use the "N" word to describe Moses.

Much like "Gone with the Wind" has been criticized for its depiction of the relationship between black and white characters and its historical inaccuracies, "Places in the Heart" walks a fine line presenting a South steep in racism and one where it is non-existent. The topic is one never discussed between Edna and Moses. But that is contrasted with how the other white characters regard Moses. For some this may be a flaw of the film even though "Places in the Heart" is not primarily interested in telling a story about racism. 

It may also affect some viewers reaction and interpretation of the Moses character and Danny Glover's performance. To the most critical eye the Moses character is fitting of the trope famously condemned by the race-baiting filmmaker Spike Lee, the Magical Negro - a submissive black character willing to selflessly help a white character. Such remarks however I believe diminish Glover's fine performance. There has been a tendency in Hollywood to create fun-loving, overly exaggerated free slave characters that may serve as comic relief but Glover's Moses character doesn't fall into that description. The character is sympathetic with Glover bringing out a sensitivity and relatability in Moses. We wish there was more screen time for him and sense there is a full character there waiting to be explored. The character should not be faulted for Benton's uneven handling of the race issue.

Glover has expressed an emotional connection to his character, saying in an interview, "All of a sudden, Places in the Heart was my grandfather's story. My grandparents who were sharecroppers when they were married more than 75 years ago and became tenant farmers and own their own farm. Moze became the picture I saw of my grandfather as a child coming up and visiting him during the summer. So I was able to use him in a sense and elevate that. It became a tribute."

Another good supporting character is Will (John Malkovich) a blind man who is also the brother-in-law of a banker (Lane Smith). Disguising his opportunistic impulse as Christian love, the banker means to take advantage of Edna's situation by suggesting she take in Will as a border. This, the banker explains, would provide Edna with a source of income. It would have been interesting to see the scene between the banker and his wife as they discuss their living arrangement with Will. If Moses is a "Magical Negro", Will is a cranky handicap character that wants to be left alone and exhibits a disdain for Edna's children

This was Malkovich's first significant film role and as with the Moses character, the viewer feels short changed as we do not get enough screen time for the character. I would have preferred more of a buildup to Will's eventual transformation.

Once all of these characters are gathered under one roof, "Places in the Heart" hits on its theme of community, bringing together a group of outcast - a woman, a black man, and a blind man - coming together to defeat the odds and bond with one another as a family. This, I believe, is the main message Robert Benton and "Places in the Heart" wants to get across.

For some reason Benton creates a subplot that serves as a counter to the main story that involves Edna's sister, Margaret (Lindsay Crouse) and her husband Wayne (Ed Harris). Wayne is having an affair with a married woman, Viola (Amy Madigan). Perhaps it is overreaching on my part but there are only two purposes I could think of that these scenes serve. One is to emphasis a spiritual element in "Places in the Heart" and comment on the Christian concept of forgiveness. The other is for Benton to make another commentary on family and the different ways in which a family unit can be broken. Either by death or infidelity.

But Benton may not have expertly drawn these connections together as many critics - Gene Siskel, Jeffrey Lyons, Neal Gabler, and Roger Ebert all criticized this aspect of the film. In Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times movie review he wrote of the subplot, "it's an unnecessary distraction, and it robs the movie of a lot of the sheer narrative power it would have had otherwise."  

There are moments concerning the love triangle nevertheless that are quite powerful and emotionally stirring. I was particularly drawn to scenes where the characters loneliness and heartache is prominent. As with all of the performances throughout the movie the viewer can sense the longing and despair within. 

Underneath "Places in the Heart" is a story about spirituality and hope. The movie begins and ends with religious words heard on-screen. The ending has caused some confusion for viewers as it blurs the lines between fantasy and reality. The film ends in church with characters taking their communion. Without spoiling anything, the scene is supposed to comfort us with a message of forgiveness where sinner and saint can sit next to each other and come together as a community.

When "Places in the Heart" was released in theaters it received much critical acclaim and award recognition. Both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert praised it. Jeffrey Lyons and Vincent Canby each declared among the best films of 1984. It received three Golden Globe nominations with Sally Field winning in the best actress for a drama category. As well as earning seven Academy  Award nominations with Sally Field once again winning for best actress. It was Field's second Oscar, coming after her performance in "Norma Rae" (1979). The Oscar win also provided us with the famous moment of Field joyously proclaiming the Academy likes her. In addition to Field's win, Robert Benton also won an Oscar for his screenplay. Other Oscar nominations included Best Picture, Best Director (Benton) and Best Supporting Actor (Malkovich).

I'm not sure how well this film is remembered today but after forty years "Places in the Heart" still seems relevant. The struggles of the working class feel endless. How many Edna's are there out there on the verge of losing their homes, desperate to provide for their families? The religious / spiritual aspect may not connection as strongly with society however. We don't see American mainstream movies today present such a sympathetic view of faith and family. Today's message movies lean more into identity politics.

Robert Benton, who is still with us at age 91, has had a long career in Hollywood writing screenplays for such films as "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967), "What's Up, Doc?" (1972), and "Superman" (1978). His directing credits include "The Late Show" (1977), the Oscar winning "Kramer vs Kramer" (1979), and later efforts such as "Twilight" (1998) with Paul Newman and the excellent "The Human Stain" (2003) with Anthony Hopkins and Nicole Kidman, which I named among the best films of its respective year. Throughout his career he received two Best Director nominations, winning for "Kramer", and five Best Screenplay nominations, with his final one being for "Nobody's Fool" (1995).

One of the reasons "Places in the Heart" succeeds is because of Benton and the amazing performances he gets from his actors. Each scene feels as if it has been constructed with great care. We follow these characters every step of the way, experiencing all they experience. It becomes profoundly clear just how personal of a project this film was to Benton.

"Places in the Heart" is a deeply moving story about perseverance, family, community, and love. It features terrific performances most notably from Sally Field, Danny Glover, and John Malkovich. Director Benton's love and care for these characters shines through scene after scene, eventually making a powerful comment on forgiveness. Forty years later the film still works and most certainly stands as one of the best films of 1984.