I should have liked Fair Game, the new film with Sean Penn and Naomi Watts, playing Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame – and certainly there are some things I liked about it that made it a worthwhile film to see.
As a Progressive (I usually use the term Liberal but ever since Glenn Simpering-Mama’s-Boy Beck has turned Progressive into a fetish, I’ll wear the label with pride), I walked into the movie predisposed to sympathize with the main characters based on what I have read about the case…. But for a film that uses the word truth with and without a capital “T”, and with and without ironic quotation marks, it left me more angry at its failures than admiring of either its message or characters.
The acting is great. The cinematography suits a Hollywood blockbuster. They spent some bucks on this – and maybe that’s part of the problem too: what it attempts to polish cleanly comes across as glib and a bit too easy.
The film has a loud-mouthed, opinionated Sean Penn playing a loud-mouthed opinionated former ambassador, Joe Wilson. Meanwhile, his wife, whose job requires her to have a bit more discretion, watches him stomp, make noise, and ultimately make enough noise to earn some enemies in high places. After a few initial fumbles (which we’ll discuss in a moment), a glaring pothole in the narrative left me shaking my head and almost irked enough to check out Plame’s book to find out if she treats the episode with similar off-handedness.
The scene in question is potentially the most dramatic – the moment when Penn/Wilson decides to send his column to the New York Times. In the film, Watts/Plame has just returned from a brutal day at the Agency. She comes in the door and when asked what is wrong, says that she really doesn’t want to talk about it. She heads upstairs and Penn/Wilson turns back to his desktop computer and begins composing the first line for his infamous New York Times Op-Ed… which led to the White House outing her as a CIA agent by leaking her identity in a bit of tit-for-tat “journalism” involving the reptilian Robert Novak. (At least Joe Wilson had the cojones to put his name to the article and offer it as an Op-Ed. Cheney had his leak ghostwritten by Novak.)
As movie moments go – this one smacks of egregious misstep if not its own outright cover-up.
Really? Plame just came home, went to bed, and Wilson never said anything before sending his article?! Or the following morning – like “By the way, honey, you know that trip to Africa I did for your employer? I’m going to write an editorial about it and see if I can get it published in… Oh, maybe the New York Times.”
Later, Penn/Wilson will have plenty of time to tearfully admit his publication of the article was a “selfish act” that had more to do with his own ego, and that Watts/Plame had maintained her silence to protect herself and her family. For me, the tremendous sacrifice Plame made before, and then after, publication is completely undercut by embracing Wilson’s position unambiguously; it is hardly so cut-and-dried as the redemptive encounter would have us believe. (What about the folks Plame worked with or the guy who sent Wilson on the mission – what happened to them?)
Just because Cheney’s White House acted reprehensibly doesn’t make Joe Wilson’s act any less problematic. Did he really not discuss it with his wife before publishing? (If not, this must have lead to some major meltdown when the newspaper arrived the next morning… Ummm, honey, did yoooooou publish an Op-Ed in the Times?) Watts/Plame is left seeming the victim of both.
And was there no discussion with the editorial staff of the NYTimes – Hey, look, fellas! We got some mail from a former ambassador on the issue of Yellow Cake, and the enrichment of uranium for a nuclear device which brings into question our reasons for promoting the idea of Weapons of Mass Destruction as a reason to go to war in Iraq… Think we should print it?
If Wilson and Plame DID discuss it, why not address it? Would an honest portrayal speak to issues Plame knew she was getting herself into? All of the rationalization and dramatic conflict that comes afterwards is brought into question by this glaring omission.
Yeah, yeah… it’s a Movie and maybe a single conflict over the course of one or two nights was used for dramatic effect later in the film – but that brings me to my 4 suggestions for Liberal “Message” movies:
1. Unless your subject’s dead, if you can’t tell the story the way it really happened, don’t make a biopic. Of course, this would force you to refer to Bob Johnson and Sally Smithers, a former ambassador and a CIA agent. But at least you won’t undermine your “truthful” story by scrambling the facts – which then leaves your critics (and in this case, a potential supporter) pointing out omissions. In this postmodern era, hagiography actually undermines any message you might be trying to make. Message or Living Hero: pick one.
2. Stop quoting Benjamin Franklin – or any other “Founding Father” for that matter! One particularly dreadful scene has Joe Wilson hectoring students with a quote from Ben Franklin about our need to defend Democracy…. Why gird your loins with the same historical flag-bedecked jockstrap Conservatives use? It makes you look as silly as they do. They want (desperately, childishly sometimes) to believe George Washington chopped down the cherry tree or stood in the boat all the way across the Potomac, because history for them is myth-making you use to foster your own agenda. They don’t use history to reflect upon past mistakes because this country never made any… U! S! A! They call upon these historical passages the same way true believers call upon any religious text – to damn enemies and put God on their side. Dancing in a circle and invoking “the Founding Fathers” – as if your case might magically be made more valid – is plain silly. I really don’t know what the hell Benjamin Franklin would have thought today; And you don’t either.
3. Speaking of invocations… Stop trying to captivate us with Bourne-Identity-drama. We’re adults. We can sit for a few minutes as you draw us into your characters rather than beat us over the head with them. The film opens with Watts/Plame showing us the life-and-death precariousness of undercover work but the bad-guy is SO clearly and comically bad and the good guy is, well, US – that it never allows the viewer to participate. The nuance that makes real drama, well, dramatic is completely missing. And sadly, Penn and Watts are such great actors that I found myself wanting more of the drama at the heart of their marital conflict and less of Scooter Libby as Golum. This movie could have been even more effective if it didn’t try so hard to demonize others but focused on personal shortcomings… which leads me to my final point….
4. Try a little real human conflict. I’m guessing that because the filmmakers felt many people didn’t know the details of this case they had to skip over interesting personal dynamics. Plame’s boss ends up shutting her down the same way every other turncoat agent in every other spy drama is left out in the cold. (To put it another way: did they ever have a relationship before he told her they didn’t? And if not, why is she surprised?) As for Penn/Wilson – if this man has as few friends and personal relationships as this movie seems to indicate perhaps its no wonder there was a bit of persecution complex. Wilson comes off as almost misanthropic, rather than the cocksure foreign service guy I imagine he really is. (The drama of the family trapped in Iraq was far more compelling but treated as a minor subplot.)
I know: other than that, what did you think of the play, Mrs. Lincoln? If you’ve gotten this far in my rant: thank you. I suppose at the heart of this entry is the disappointment that a film like this, with talent this good will simply play to kneejerk sympathizers and do little to enlighten those who might not have known about the case much less give those in the opposition pause (and cause) to consider a different point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment