I went to the discount theatre today with the vague intention of seeing Brendan Fraser's Journey to the Center of the Earth, but when I got there I decided to go with my gut and saw Swing Vote. This isn't a bad movie, necessarily. It's an okay movie stuck with Kevin Costner as its star, and that just brings down the whole proceeding. Costner has had good movies before, but even in them he was the stoic rock around which the action moved. Here he's just a dumbass, and the movie seems to think we like dumbasses because we're dumbasses, too.
Costner plays Ernest "Bud" Johnson, a drunk and a nobody. He's a single dad to a fifth-grade-or-so daughter who's much smarter than he deserves ("What do you want to be when you grow up?" "I go back and forth between veterinarian and chairman of the Fed."), making me seriously wonder how his sperm produced this bright little girl, especially when we later see her mother is even worse. Bud is the sort of guy who responds to his daughter telling him she registered him to vote through the mail with "That's just great. I could get jury duty now!" He seems to love her, but then forgets about her repeatedly. I hate Bud. Even when Bud is theoretically redeemed at the end, mostly by admitting that he's a dumbass, I still hated him.
Through some arbitrary plot mechanics that the movie knows better than to dwell on, an entire presidential election comes down to Bud's vote. The state of New Mexico is tied, and due to a voting machine malfunction that caused Bud's "vote" to not count (I'm gonna skip over a whole part here made more complicated than it needs to be, involving how Bud didn't really try to vote), he gets to re-vote ten days later. The global news media (Aaron Brown, Chris Matthews, Arianna Huffington, etc. all have extended cameos) descends upon Bud's tiny hometown of Texico, New Mexico, as do both candidates.
This is where the movie finds itself as much as it does. The candidates include the republican President Boone (Kelsey Grammer), and a democrat from Vermont named Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper). Neither of these men is given much of personality, though Greenleaf, probably unintentionally, reminds viewers of John McCain. A lot. Maybe it was just me, I dunno. Anyway, both of them sycophantically try to please Bud in whatever way that they can, which Bud buys hook, line, and sinker but his daughter Molly immediately sees through. We also spend time with the candidate's advisors, with Stanley Tucci as the President's ruthless Rovian operative and Nathan Lane (perhaps the most restrained I've ever seen him) as an idealist democrat who is just so sick of losing it hurts.
The best parts of the movie come when the candidates fall all over each other in an attempt to conform to Bud's every whim, with the Republican coming out in favor of gay marriage and the Democrat denouncing abortion rights based on off-hand remarks. The campaign commercials in which they do so are absolutely hysterical. We also see each of the candidates questioning, in his own way, whether any of this is right, and how far he's willing to go. Though a bit earnest, all of that works. There's also a fairly worthless side plot involving a pretty hispanic reporter and her boss (George Lopez, who is totally pointless but at least doesn't have time to ruin the movie), but it's also fairly inoffensive.
Where the movie runs into trouble is in the relationship between Bud and his daughter, and the fact that it's front and center more than we really want it to be. Normally, I appreciate character development, but it just doesn't work. There's also a truly bizarre shaky-cam drama detour at the top of the third act that definitely didn't need to be there... it's as if the film-makers think it's the key incident in the film, but the audience just wants it to go away. In the end, Bud gives a long, vaguely poetic speech on national television that is Costner's best moment in the movie by far, but it doesn't feel earned and I was left wondering if we were supposed to think his daughter wrote it for him.
This is a movie with some thought behind it, that manages to comment on our system without seeming like a polemic for one side or the other. However, it runs into trouble trying to make those ideas into a movie. We're left with a comedy with many funny moments, but also moments like that when the Secretary of State and Attorney General of New Mexico show up at Bud's trailer to tell him about the situation. He assumes they're social services and pleads with them not to take his daughter away. I was left not sure whether this scene was supposed to be funny or not. And that's why this is definitely a dollar movie.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Breaking News: Bailout Passes on Second Try
The US House of Representatives passed the "bailout" of our nation's financial institutions earlier today, by a comfortable margin of 261-171. The bill gained substantial support among both Republicans and Democrats. I guess Republicans weren't as insulted by the package of "sweeteners" as I would have been in their shoes.
The bill was then rushed to the desk of President Bush, who signed it this afternoon. The largest group that switched its votes from no to yes were probably members of the Congressional Black Caucus (all Democrats), who were reassured by recent pledges from Sen. Barack Obama that, if elected, he would support legislation that would assist homeowners who are currently facing foreclosure. Republican Sen. John McCain was also credited with helping to secure votes on his side of the aisle, especially among the delegation from his home state of Arizona.
The vote was far from unanimous, however, and opponents voiced dire concerns. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) told us to "Pray for our Republic," while a better known Ohio Rep., Dennis Kucinich, delivered an impassioned speech highlighting the case of a 90 year old Akron resident who shot herself yesterday after authorities attempted to enforce the foreclosure of her home.
It is too early to tell what the final effect of the legislation will be, but here's hoping our government did the right thing here. It'd sure be more convenient than them being wrong. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he would move swiftly to begin the distribution of the funds.
The bill was then rushed to the desk of President Bush, who signed it this afternoon. The largest group that switched its votes from no to yes were probably members of the Congressional Black Caucus (all Democrats), who were reassured by recent pledges from Sen. Barack Obama that, if elected, he would support legislation that would assist homeowners who are currently facing foreclosure. Republican Sen. John McCain was also credited with helping to secure votes on his side of the aisle, especially among the delegation from his home state of Arizona.
The vote was far from unanimous, however, and opponents voiced dire concerns. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) told us to "Pray for our Republic," while a better known Ohio Rep., Dennis Kucinich, delivered an impassioned speech highlighting the case of a 90 year old Akron resident who shot herself yesterday after authorities attempted to enforce the foreclosure of her home.
It is too early to tell what the final effect of the legislation will be, but here's hoping our government did the right thing here. It'd sure be more convenient than them being wrong. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he would move swiftly to begin the distribution of the funds.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Breaking News: Bailout Voted Down
In one of the most dramatic floor votes in a long time, the US House of Representatives today rejected the proposed emergency bailout of financial institutions, and not by only one or two votes, either. The final tally was 205 for, 228 against, with Democrats supporting the measure 140-95 and Republicans rejecting it 65-133. This despite the urging of leadership of both parties, as well as the President and most national financial leaders, for passage. On news of the vote, the Dow Jones average fell over 700 points, a one-day record.
Many representatives seem to have felt that the measure, which would use approximately $700 billion to buy "bad debts" from financial firms, was so unpopular in their districts that a "yes" vote would amount to political suicide. Others felt that it represented too large of a government intervention in the free market. Even those who supported the bill were often see as "holding their nose" while voting for it, with House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner calling it a "mud sandwich" while explaining why it was necessary. (what does that even mean?) Democrats immediately blamed the Republican leadership for failing to get their rank and file in line, while Republicans blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi for turning off some of their members with a "partisan speech" just prior to the vote.
It's unclear where we go from here. Wall Street will probably continue its toilet spiral. The measure will probably come back up for a vote at some point this week, but it's unclear what sort of changes they'll have to make to get this past the House.
As I have said here before, I'm not an economist. But I take it as a good sign when individual members of Congress at least attempt to think for themselves and represent their districts rather than just doing what they're told. Were they right in this case? I guess we'll see.
More details here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30bailout.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Many representatives seem to have felt that the measure, which would use approximately $700 billion to buy "bad debts" from financial firms, was so unpopular in their districts that a "yes" vote would amount to political suicide. Others felt that it represented too large of a government intervention in the free market. Even those who supported the bill were often see as "holding their nose" while voting for it, with House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner calling it a "mud sandwich" while explaining why it was necessary. (what does that even mean?) Democrats immediately blamed the Republican leadership for failing to get their rank and file in line, while Republicans blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi for turning off some of their members with a "partisan speech" just prior to the vote.
It's unclear where we go from here. Wall Street will probably continue its toilet spiral. The measure will probably come back up for a vote at some point this week, but it's unclear what sort of changes they'll have to make to get this past the House.
As I have said here before, I'm not an economist. But I take it as a good sign when individual members of Congress at least attempt to think for themselves and represent their districts rather than just doing what they're told. Were they right in this case? I guess we'll see.
More details here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30bailout.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Breaking News: We Have a Deal
In an update on some of our previous discussions here, the US Congress seems to have negotiated a deal for a Wall St. bailout that at least a majority can live with.
CNNMoney discusses the provisions of the deal here: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/economy/Sunday_talks_bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes
Basically, the deal is based on the original $700 billion package proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson. The Democratic add-ons (the most discussed of which have been additional Congressional oversight of the money and caps on CEO pay for those companies receiving the money) seem to be included, as well. The Republican "revolt" in the House was placated at least somewhat with a provision involving mortgage insurance (which was pretty much that group's alternate plan), but Paulson has (not in so many words, but these people never say anything in so many words) that he doesn't think that will help and doesn't want to use that option.
In the end, we have a somewhat more sensible version of the plan we started with a week or so ago. This is the plan sparking public public protests around the country, roundly accused of favoring "Wall St. over Main St." Polls this week have showed that Americans are pretty much split... one third favor the plan, one third are opposed, and one third are undecided. No one will ever accuse me of being an economist, but I personally do not yet understand how this will actually solve the root problem. I hope it will, though, since otherwise this is an awful waste.
CNNMoney discusses the provisions of the deal here: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/economy/Sunday_talks_bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes
Basically, the deal is based on the original $700 billion package proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson. The Democratic add-ons (the most discussed of which have been additional Congressional oversight of the money and caps on CEO pay for those companies receiving the money) seem to be included, as well. The Republican "revolt" in the House was placated at least somewhat with a provision involving mortgage insurance (which was pretty much that group's alternate plan), but Paulson has (not in so many words, but these people never say anything in so many words) that he doesn't think that will help and doesn't want to use that option.
In the end, we have a somewhat more sensible version of the plan we started with a week or so ago. This is the plan sparking public public protests around the country, roundly accused of favoring "Wall St. over Main St." Polls this week have showed that Americans are pretty much split... one third favor the plan, one third are opposed, and one third are undecided. No one will ever accuse me of being an economist, but I personally do not yet understand how this will actually solve the root problem. I hope it will, though, since otherwise this is an awful waste.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
