How many times will that title be used when discussing The Ides of March? I couldn’t resist.
Directed by George Clooney and opening this weekend, Ides is a political thriller centered on a presidential candidate’s press secretary. And SCANDAL.
This is the kind of movie that gets Oscar buzz. What kind of movie? Clooney-directed political statement? Story about power and political corruptions? Sure, maybe. There’s precedent for that. White-male directed movie about powerful white men, and politics, with a dash of sexy lady and serious lady? Definitely.
Watch for yourself:
Now, as I haven’t seen The Ides of March, or read much about it yet, I could be totally wrong. Marisa Tomei as Black Glasses Serious Reporter could be the center of the film, the only person in Ohio (or the national press) with enough smarts and courage to investigate the SCANDAL. The movie could completely center around her work to uncover and expose the SCANDAL (although she gets one or possibly two lines in the trailer). My snarky “sexy lady” comment could also be completely off base; Evan Rachel Wood’s character in the trailer might claim to not be able to tie a tie, and might joke about being a “lowly intern” just to cover up her power. Right? RIGHT?!
You might scoff at my annoyance specifically with this movie, because politics in the United States is dominated by white men, and women don’t have much power in the political game, so in that sense, the movie is “realistic.” But you can’t look at this movie (or any movie) in isolation. Judging from the trailer, Ides follows a well-established pattern for Serious Movies That Become Oscar-Nominated Films (see our reviews of Oscar-nominated movies from 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 for some examples), or, Important Movies About Important Things (read: not things that particularly involve women).
Instead of seeing Ides of March this weekend, I want to watch a political thriller in which women take center stage. Give me some ideas.
Hmmmmmm … are there any? I immediately thought of Nicole Kidman in The Interpreter. That’s it off the top of my head …
What about The Manchurian Candidate? That’s a political thriller with ladies! I’ve only seen the remake, but it was pretty good, and both Kimberly Elise and Meryl Streep are totally badass in it.
On this we agree, and it’s one of the reasons I’m not as ‘excited’ about this one as my peers, and why I passed on the press screenings. I could be wrong, but the trailer sells 45 minutes of political intrigue and then a second 45 minutes of “And then the pretty white girl ruined EVERYTHING!” I could be wrong, but I can only wonder if the film will be half as insightful about politics as Bulworth, Wag the Dog, and Primary Colors (all of which came out within six months of each other in late 97/early 98) and whether any political drama today would have a female character like Kathy Bates’s Oscar-nominated Libby Holden.
I don’t want to be an asshole, but should’t you see the movie before writing this?
Steph: I could only think of Notes on a Scandal, which isn’t really about politics at all. It’s just a thriller about SCANDAL.
Carrie: I haven’t seen the remake of The Manchurian Candidate, but have seen the original. It’s been a while, so I don’t clearly remember the female characters. I remember a domineering mother.
Scott: Love the three films you mention. Kathy Bates!
Anonymous: Shouldn’t you read the post before commenting? Since I specifically was discussing the trailer? Gosh, I couldn’t possibly have an opinion based on the film’s own advertisement for itself! Silly me!
I’d give the remake a shot. It’s true that “domineering mother” may not be the most progressive female character archetype, but she is the catalyst of a lot of the film’s action, which I’d argue counts as taking center stage. The remake also has a female detective (Kimberly Elise’s character) who is instrumental in advancing the plot. It’s an interesting film – I’d recommend checking it out!
Wow, that was insanely defensive. I read the post. Of course you can have a comment about advertising. But your post isn’t about the advertising (with the exception of you observation about the number of lines Marisa Tomei has in the trailer).
Some excerpts:
“You might scoff at my annoyance specifically with this movie”
“But you can’t look at this movie (or any movie) in isolation.”
“Judging from the trailer, Ides follows…” (this one points specifically to how you are judging the movie itself BY the trailer, not judging the trailer)
I am asking because it is likely that you are right about all of these things and if you are they need to be said! but it ruins your credibility if 1/2 of your short post is about how you haven’t seen the movie and this could be wrong. Why write it at all?
Carrie: I will! I’m really interested in (or slightly obsessed with) remakes of films and the changes made to them so they’ll fit in a current social, cultural, and political environment.
Anonymous: Obviously so I can waste time responding to attacks from Anonymous people. Sorry this “short post” doesn’t meet your high standards!
Why does anonymity make a difference here? Everything on the internet is anonymous–it’s not like we’re video chatting. Will it help if I use “anonymous 1,” so that it’s a unique name that I made up that also tells you nothing about my identity?
I am not sure why you are reacting with so much hostility. This is a serious question. And I have no standards about the length of a post, I was only pointing out that the post in its entirety was not long, and a whole paragraph–one of the only two–was devoted to disclaimers that you hadn’t seen the movie and might be incorrect. The reference to length was only to point to proportionality, not length for its own sake. This is a serious criticism, though, which is different from an attack. How can you claim standing to critique a movie you haven’t seen? Again, you might be right, and if you are I completely agree with you! But it hurts your and our credibility when it appears as a knee-jerk response that is unsubstantiated, which is what so many feminist critiques are accused of already. Don’t make them right.
First, it’s not our job here to be indiscriminately friendly toward rude commenters. While I love the whole, “I don’t want to be an asshole” warning … we all know people only say that right before they’re about to be an asshole.
You said: “I was only pointing out that the post in its entirety was not long, and a whole paragraph–one of the only two–was devoted to disclaimers that you hadn’t seen the movie and might be incorrect.”
It seems, krod, that the very obvious sarcasm of that disclaimer paragraph was lost on you. I watched the trailer. And I’m familiar with, you know, movies, which means I’m quite aware of how women in movies are NOT traditionally at the center of the plot, especially if we’re talking about what the women are DOING as opposed to who they’re dating or what they look like.
If you pay any attention at all to the way women are portrayed on screen, it’s easy to see the subtext of Amber’s disclaimer paragraph is, “I could be wrong about ALL this shit; but let’s face it, we all know I’m not.”
Now why don’t you try to help us come up with some political thrillers in which women take center stage. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
Of course it’s not your job to be indiscriminately friendly. You could choose to do that in the name of productive discourse, feminist community, professionalism, or just good old fashioned maturity, but you can make your own choices.
The sarcasm of the disclaimers is irrelevant. I am pointing out that someone wrote a post about a movie that she hadn’t seen based on a commercial for it. Why not see the movie and judge it based on how it treated the women instead of how you are assuming it will? Even though women aren’t the main characters in this movie, maybe we should look at what they are “DOING” in it. Of course women aren’t the center of the plot in a vast majority of movies, and of course women are often just the wives, girlfriends, sexual conquests, etc of the male main characters, and of course the film industry and our culture deserve all of the scrutiny that you want to give them for it (and the television industry, and advertising….). But that doesn’t mean that an individual film that happens to have a male main character is inherently sexist and that we don’t need to look a little more closely at things rather than always taking them at face value. I’m not saying that this one is not, but then again I haven’t seen it yet.
I am shocked by the defensive responses that came from my bringing this up. If it’s because you know I am right then let’s just move on, but if it’s because you truly think you are right then your insecurity may reflect the quality of the critique on this blog.
I wish we’d gotten off on the right foot. It doesn’t seem like, “I don’t want to be an asshole, but …” worked out for us so well.
I truly appreciate the productive dialogue we’ve had here, krod!
Here’s a review of the movie, which includes an extended audio discussion (that contains spoilers). I think it’s worth noting that the review contains one sentence about Evan Rachel Wood’s character (though she’s talked about quite a bit in the audio discussion), and not a single mention of Marisa Tomei’s character.
Beware the Ides of March: George Clooney and Ryan Gosling Stumble in this Failed Political Thriller
My sister saw The Ides of March earlier tonight. She called me immediately afterward and said, “Oh my god, Stephanie, you will HATE THIS MOVIE. The women are HORRIBLE, especially Evan Rachel Wood’s character.” That’s pretty much all I need to hear to avoid this film.
I saw Ides and was disappointed with it for the exact reasons you’ve mentioned.
If you haven’t already seen it, The Contender was a very good political flick with a female main character, played by the always-excellent Joan Allen.
LOVED The Contender.