That 70s Movie Podcast
A look back at the films that defined cinema's greatest era - the 1970s!
That 70s Movie Podcast
The Candidate
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
This week on "That '70s Movie Podcast," Jonathan and Michael hit the hustings for the 1972 political satire, "The Candidate."
With ten weeks to go until the midterms, what better time to revisit this classic take on the inner workings of a political campaign? We both loved Robert Redford's performance as Bill McKay, though we slightly disagreed on whether he is a sympathetic character caught up in the dog-and-pony show of electoral politics or a willing participant. We also wondered whether the movie's satirical arrows were pointed at the politicians, the consultants, or perhaps the voters. Finally, any movie with Peter Boyle and Allen Garfield can't be all bad!
So hold our hot dog, check the polls, and remember, vote early and vote often for this week's episode of "That 70s Movie Podcast."
Please take a moment to follow us, rate the podcast, leave a comment, or buy us a cup of coffee.
Okay, we've got about sixty seconds of privacy before they find out we're here now, so uh what's on your mind, Senator I don't know. Okay, we gotta get out of here. See, I told you they'd be easy.
SPEAKER_01Marvin. What do we do now?
SPEAKER_00Welcome everybody to the latest episode of That 70s Movie Podcast. I'm your host, Michael A. Cohen, joined by my co-host, Jonathan Kirshn. Jonathan, it's been a while. How are you doing?
SPEAKER_01I'm doing okay. You know, it's the summer getting things done. It's been reasonably pleasant.
SPEAKER_00That's excellent. Um, I have been having a very good summer, a lot of travel the past week. That's why we've not been doing any episodes, just because uh, you know, summer travel in August kind of takes the uh out of places where I can record. I was uh in um on a vacation with my family in South Carolina, where I watched a whole bunch of movies, including The Odyssey, which we'll talk about in a moment. And then I was uh in the Midwest, where I went to a bunch of baseball games with my uh with my son, which was Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. A lot of fun. Makes me think we should do a baseball movie one of these days.
SPEAKER_01Absolutely.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, including maybe one by the director we're talking about today. Uh so before we get into that movie, Jonathan, have you seen anything good recently?
SPEAKER_01Well, it's been a while, so I didn't want to make a massive list. I thought I would just call attention to two that really caught my attention. I think I had mentioned that I was reading David Thompson's book, A Sudden Flicker of Light, which I can now heartily recommend to you all. I don't know if I could initially, because I hadn't finished it yet. I think it slots in behind his three monumental masterpieces, which is very high praise. I mean, it's it's not up there with those giant books that you all must have on your shelves, but it's it's quite an excellent book, and I recommend it. And in that book, uh he mentioned the collaboration between Marlena Dietrich and Joseph von Sternberg, which I owned, but had not ever gotten around to watching. And he picked out um Shanghai Express from 1932 as the, I think he said, the most elegant of the set. And I watched it and I was really impressed. I mean, I'm a big Dietrich fan, but it is one of those pre-code movies before 1934 in the early sound era that was so sophisticated and so brilliantly done. And I walked away quite impressed with the operation that I dipped into other films in the set, and I wasn't as blown away, but I haven't made my way through the rest of it. But Shanghai Express, for those of you who haven't seen it, I agree, is the one to seek out. And then I just want to send a little love to this small Brian Wilson biopic called A Love and Mercy, which I found very watchable. I'm not a huge Beach Boys fan, so I'm not biased in this regard, but I am a huge John Cusack fan, and there are multiple incarnations of Brian Wilson that are shown in this movie. It's one of those fragmented temporal movies. And I thought John Cusack was really showed why he is a great actor in this performance, and the movie was very well executed and very watchable, if one of those movies that's told from the point of view of one of the historical protagonists in the story. And so we have to be a little cautious about just accepting it all as kind of the way it actually happened. But it was it was quite interesting, and the performance is stellar.
SPEAKER_00I saw that movie a couple years ago. I enjoyed it. I thought Paul Dano actually was very good as the younger uh Brian Wilson. Uh I really enjoyed his performance. Um it's a good film. I mean, I am also not a huge Beach Boys film. I I am of the view, and this gets me a lot of crap from other music lovers. I think Pet Sounds is an overrated album, but that's a whole other conversation. Um anything else you want to mention?
SPEAKER_01Just those two. No, I know that you have like a an avalanche of movies you want to mention, and I thought I could kind of comment along as you sang their praises.
SPEAKER_00I do indeed. Um I want to give a shout out to longtime uh uh listener, uh Spencer Steele, who mentioned to us that we had not done any 1972 films. So I went and I watched a couple of 72 films, including the one we're doing today, The Candidate. I also watched uh Images by Robert Altman and Cisco Pike, another movie that you are a huge fan of. I liked both of them. I like images a little more. I cannot believe it as an Altman film. I don't know if we're gonna do it, but it's a really compelling movie. It's kind of like a psychological horror film. Um it's sort of almost surrealistic at times, but um a very strange entry in the Altman filmography, wouldn't you say?
SPEAKER_01Yes, and that's what one of the things that's so appealing about it is that it's it's the least obvious Altman film. Although it shares some affinities with his early effort, That Cold Day in the Park, and then shares some affinities with three women from 1977 as kind of these moody psychological, almost thriller type films, although you know, three women are certainly not a thriller, but almost his most Bergman-inflected pictures. And I you don't think of Altman as a Bergman type. And also Susannah York, I think this is based on a novel that she wrote, and I think it it she had a large influence on the production as well.
SPEAKER_00She's great in the film. I mean, it's a really just unusual film, especially for somebody like Altman. Um and I I think maybe at some point we should talk about it because it is there's a lot to chew over in that film. It's a as like I said, it's a very sort of unusual, discordant, surrealistic movie, um, a lot of dream sequences, a lot of times hard to tell what's reality and what's not reality. Um, but it's also a beautiful film. So uh I give it a thumbs up. Uh as for Cisco Pike, I mean, I always enjoy something with Chris Christopherson. He's great. Didn't quite catch me the way I think it does for you. It sort of falls in kind of the five easy pieces, maybe two-lane blacktop vein, a little bit of early 70s.
SPEAKER_01I gotta stop you right there. I mean, first of all, five easy pieces. We're talking Mount Rushmore. Okay. You can't just lump this in. I said in the vein, and it's far down the vein. And uh you know, two-laned is is is is two-lane. But yeah, I mean, I Cisco Pike I think is a fascinating movie. I don't I don't I would never put it in the same camp as a film like Five Easy Pieces, even though I'll watch Karen Black read the phone book, and she's you know wonderful in this movie, and you've you've got Christofferson and the supporting players, you know. You've got Harry Dean Stanton in there among many others. It's a fascinating film that we should talk about one day, but I find it really collapses at the end in a in a in a way I didn't buy.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I kind of agree with that, actually. And I thought Gene Hackman, who's in the movie, I mean, he's always good, but it's sort of an odd performance, and the character is odd. I didn't quite buy it. Um I also went back and I watched uh I should have never seen this before, Da uh Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, an early Scorsese. And um oh man, I don't know. You know what? I really enjoyed this movie until the ending, which to use a phrase you like to use was borderline unforgivable. Uh just uh the ending of that movie is so disappointing, so non-70s. Um having said that, I think Ellen Burston is great. Um I think uh is Chris Chris Opperson also in that movie. Yes.
SPEAKER_01Of course, it's a little mini festival, Chris Chris Opperson.
SPEAKER_00He's great too. There's a good child actor in that movie. The relationship between that child and Ellen Burston is great. It's really a compelling movie, but again, it really is failed by its ending. We could talk about it at some point. I think it's a it's a fair movie to consider.
SPEAKER_01And Ellen Burston was an extremely important force behind that movie, and and the ending was controversial even during production, and she was involved in that fight.
SPEAKER_00Yes. Um so let me mention a few other films that I did watch, and this is we want to get first into one. I I finally went to go see The Odyssey, and this is a fun story. I was in South Carolina for vacation. We drove to uh what's the name of the town? It's a town in Georgia that has the tallest IMAX theater in the world. True story. And uh I think it's called Pooler, Georgia, I believe is where it was. So as you know, I am a huge Christopher Nolan fan. I was very excited to see this movie, and uh I liked it. Uh I did not love it. Uh it it it was a little bloated, it was a little too um spectacle-y. And um I well, let me tell you the pause things. It's a very immersive film. I mean, he's a wonderful director. He's he's he's he's so good with this with sound and the sound production of his films. It's a very immersive experience, especially in an iMac here to see a film like this. Um, and there's some interesting elements to it, but I did think that there was a lot of inconsistency in the main character. Not inconsistency with the story, but inconsistency in the way that he was presented. Um, the movie is, and I actually kind of like this. The movie is is it's a take on the Odyssey, but it's a take. It's not the it's not faithful to the Odyssey. Right. It's Nolan kind of having a little bit of um what's it called, artistic uh um license. Yes. And I had no problem with that. I mean, the movie is basically an extended take on the impact of war on individuals, but I didn't think that was consistent with that theme throughout the movie. Um you obviously have not seen it.
SPEAKER_01I I do plan to see it, but I it does have those two strikes against it, strike one epic, and strike two, you know, it's an important movie. And the phrase important movie sends me, you know, running in the opposite direction. But I've heard so much about it that I do think it's it's essentially obligatory for me to see it. But again, that that that word obligatory does does inhibit my racing out to see it.
SPEAKER_00I I, you know, okay, I think I hear you. And the thing about this is, like, you know, Oppenheimer was what, two years ago, three years ago. That movie was obligatory viewing. I thought that movie was fantastic. Uh just I liked it. Yeah, you like, right. So it so that was a movie that kind of held up to the to the the hype. This one uh I didn't feel like it did, but I also feel I need to see it again. I just think it was it's too much on a first time, especially in IMAX, because it's such an overwhelming experience to see a film like that.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell I just want to double back if I haven't said this before and say um regarding what's the movie we just talked about? His previous one? Yeah, Oppenheimer. All right, good. Senility is definitely setting in here. Um, it was such a thrill, but it's a double-edged sword, um, to see Robert Downey Jr. act in that movie. I mean, my God, I thought his performance was phenomenal. It's what he's capable of doing, and it just makes me angry about what he did for the previous 20 years. I know.
SPEAKER_00I know. Um, you know, it's funny. I liked him in this, I thought uh what's his name? Uh Killian Murphy, I thought was really just fantastic in that film. Um I actually what's her name? The actress who played uh his wife uh I I didn't even remember the name of the movie. Don't look at me. Yeah, I know, right. I can't remember her. I'm forgetting her name. She's married to the guy from the office. I didn't like her performance very much, to be honest. Um but in general, I just thought that was a brilliant movie, had a real momentum to it, real energy to it. That this movie had at various points, but um I think if you sort of if you probe a little deeper on this movie, there are some there are some issues with it. I I hope I I hope you go see it and then we can talk about it because I'd love to get your your take on it.
SPEAKER_01I do plan to say it. It's just a question of when.
SPEAKER_00Okay, I'm gonna mention a few other films that I saw because I just went a little nuts the past two weeks just watching films. Uh finally watched uh uh actually I had no, I had seen this movie before, but I didn't remember it very well. The Version of Suicides, which is the um film by uh Sophia Coppola, which is widely considered one of her best films. Um when we had Christina Newland on, I think she said that was her favorite uh Sofia Coppola film. I think so, yes. I feel that way about that film the way I feel about most of Sophia Coppola's films. It was good. I didn't love it. It was fine. I I it it didn't quite work for me. Um it it was an interesting film. She gets good performances out of her actors. I just didn't find it as compelling. I think you have not seen that, correct?
SPEAKER_01I have not seen that one.
SPEAKER_00Okay. Um I'm doing a so a couple things I've been doing, trying to uh the Oliver Assayus uh uh viewing that you would suggest that I tried to do. I watched Irma Vep. Didn't love that movie. I know you love it. I thought it was a little slight. I thought it was a little it's basically a film sort of, I guess, satirizing the French film industry. And if I'm gonna be honest, I just don't really care about the French film industry. So I didn't find it verily compelling. I did like Maggie Chung. I think she's great. Um, but maybe I need to see it again. I don't know. I know you is that one of your favorite Assayus films?
SPEAKER_01Um I would not put it in the very, very top, say the Holy Trinity of Assayus films. Sure. But I I like it enormously. And here's here's your problem, not my problem. I have never seen an Assayus film that didn't get better with repeated viewings. There you go. And I've I've looked over my notes about this, and and it's amazing how I say, this is pretty good. You know, I expected more from Assayus, and then the second viewing is, wow, this is better than I remembered. And by the fourth viewing, I'm just like gushing over the greatest of them all. And this invariably is found in my notes about any Assayas film. So I I would I would be reluctant to ever to ever even opine about one uh in uh after one viewing. But I would say, you know, Irma Veb probably slots in for me as a in the second tier. Like there are four or five Assayus films, maybe even six or seven, that I just think are masterpieces. And I love Irma Veb, as you said. I love with a capital L O V E love, but it still, I don't think, is in the category of breathtaking, which so many of his films are for me. Aaron Powell Okay.
SPEAKER_00Well, I look, I need to watch more of them. It's on my list of things to do. So you know, hopefully I'll get to some more of his movies.
SPEAKER_01Uh let me recommend to you and to our viewers Kirk Clean, which also features Maggie Chung and which I think is underseen and devastating.
SPEAKER_00So I'm glad you mentioned Maggie Chung because uh seeing her in this film and reminding myself how much I liked her in uh In the Mood for Love, I went back and started watching a bunch of the films from Wong Kar Wai, who's a um Hong Kong filmmaker. I'm a big fan of his movies. I think we talked about In the Mood for Love. I I just adore that movie. I think you didn't like it as much as I did, um, but I think it's a great film. Um but I watched uh Fallen Angels. Have you seen that movie? Maybe. It's already. Which one is it? It's the one about the hitman and his assistant. Yeah, it's got kind of yes.
SPEAKER_01Yes, I have seen it.
SPEAKER_00So I like his films a lot, but I think they kind of there's also a film, a filmmaker that works on multiple viewings because that movie, for example, Fallen Angels, is a very confusing movie. Um, it's very 90s too, but there's some of the shots in that film, some of the things he does, some of the choices he makes, the way he brings the spec the camera really close up to his actors, the way he sort of go uses the handheld, which which in the 90s a lot of directors really went nuts in a bad way with the handheld camera. I remember seeing uh the Lars Venture, and I hate Lars Ventura, but Dancer in the Dark, and wanting to vomit from watching because of the the handheld use in that film. But Fallen Angels is much better. I it's really great film. I I I liked it. There are parts of it that were a little uneven, but the parts that are good like really stand out. He's got a wonderful sense of feel and and the vibe of his films is really interesting. And that's a movie just about sort of loneliness. It's a very good 90s kind of like I almost say slacrophone because that's not the way I would have put it, but it's very 90s kind of themes in that movie. So I like that one a lot. Um and the last one I want to mention is I finally went back and I watched uh Enora, which I had not seen since it came out and since it won, you know, Best Picture. And I gotta tell you, that is a fantastic movie. That is one of the best movies I've seen in in recent years, and I adored it. And I think you don't like it because I do, but you also but you do like it, correct?
SPEAKER_01Yes. And it's also one of the movies that David Thompson sings about in the new book, A Sudden Flicker of Light. And so that that has a lot of street cred with me. But I I thought it was excellent, but I my my take onora is that there's uh a 100-minute masterpiece packed in those 139 minutes.
SPEAKER_00You know, and it's funny, you said that to me offline, and I was like, the bloat of that movie is why I like it so much. I also think it's really interesting. There's three very distinct acts in this movie, right? Um the first act is a Cinderella story, uh, where the stripper uh slash sex worker Honora gets married to this Russian, you know, this fail son, based on lack of a better term. The second part is sort of a Cape or Chase movie that I love, but I get it's a little much for some people. And the third part sort of the cold splash of reality. Um but I think that the movie, the ending of that movie is so friggin' good. Yeah, it kind of encapsulates all the themes of the movie and it's beautiful visual storytelling. And uh it captures her character and her challenges and the wall she's built and her fears of intimacy and everything about her into one beautiful scene. I I just loved it, and it just really stuck with me for days after I saw it. I just couldn't stop thinking about it. I know I'd seen it before and I loved it the first time I saw it, but man, if you haven't seen a while, or if you've never seen it, I can't recommend enough. It's just a great movie.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and I don't mean to be contrary. I mean, I I agree the ending is extremely powerful, and that means that the movie was very successful because the movie has to get you to the place where the ending can be that powerful. Absolutely. And so it was. And so the movie does that. And I also really I've seen most of his films, I think. I'm a huge advocate of Sean Baker. Even when I'm not crazy about a particular entry in his canon, he's what we want. He's he has a distinct point of view. He's extremely daring, and he does not seem to be someone who gets up in the morning and says, How can I make a commercial movie? Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Well, the one thing I the one other thought I had about this movie was like, I cannot believe it won best picture. It is, it is genuinely shocking to me that a film like this won best picture. Um it happens every every couple of years. Like Moonlight's other example of that movie that you're like, wait, that one best picture? Like this is a movie that is uh it's a tough movie, but it's also one that I think is very is is again like that ending is it's not the kind of thing that I feel like Hollywood or the Oscars voters like respond to as much as they should.
SPEAKER_01And it's a good thing that Bob Hope wasn't hosting the ceremony that year because if he was alive, it would have killed him. It would have I think that's probably right.
SPEAKER_00Oh, or John Wayne. Or John Wayne. That's true. They could have co-hosted it. They could have co-hosted and both had a card had a uh cardiac arrest on on stage. Um so all right, so that's it. I actually have not seen the Sean Baker films. I can't believe I haven't seen any other films. I really need to now because I just, again, loved it. Uh all right. So I've gotten through all of that. Let's just mention very quickly, we got some very nice notes from uh listeners. Our old friend Curly Pubes, haven't heard from him in a while. He said, Happy anniversary, gentlemen, a great year podcast. Keep it coming. Uh, Paul Cunningham, our old friend from uh Ireland, corrected me that Cyril Cusack in the Day of the Jackal is Irish. He is not British. So I apologize to Paul, all the Irish people, and to any members of Mr. Cusack's family who might be listening. Uh and finally, uh, we did post the uh Last or Sheila as a bonus episode. And I will be making this available to everybody very soon. Uh, but the bonus thing is going to be people can get a sort of sneak preview of some of these episodes, but eventually we're gonna try to put them all out so people can listen to them. We did spend half an hour or 45 minutes talking about that movie a year ago. We'd like people to hear it. Uh, and so that I think that gets us to uh the movie we're talking about today, which is the candidate. Uh, what is it about? It's a 1972 political satire about Bill McKay, the son of a famous politician who runs for the U.S. Senate in California, and political chaos ensues. It is directed by Michael Ritchie, it's written by Jeremy Larner. We'll talk about more about him in a second. Cinematography by Victor Kemper and John Cordy, edited by Robert Esther and Richard Harris, music by John Rubinstein. It uh stars Robert Redford as Bill McKay, Peter Boyle, Melvin Douglas, Don Porter, Alan Garfield, Karen Carlson, Michael Lerner, Kenneth Toby, among others, including a number of uh guest spots from uh people like Hubert Humphrey, Alan Cranston, and uh Natalie Wood. Uh the film won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay for Jeremy Larner. I have a good story about that. It was also nominated for Best Sound. Um, it is not on the AFI list of top 100 films of all time, nor is it on the IndieWire films of the greatest level of 1970s. So, Jonathan, it took us a while to get here, but we are here. Tell me, the candidate, is this a good film? Is this a bad film, or is this a great film?
SPEAKER_01It's a really good film. More than good, but I cannot I cannot give it the official great seal. Interesting, interesting.
SPEAKER_00I think I would go great. I think this is as good a political satire, a good of a look at the inner workings of a political campaign that I think I've ever seen. That's not a documentary. And what I think is most compelling about this film is that so many of the themes of this movie felt relevant to today's politics. Sure. And I couldn't help thinking about the connection between uh Bill McKay and one candidate in particular, this this election cycle, one uh Graham Plattiner in Maine. Now, they're very different backgrounds, very different candidates, but the idea of somebody sort of being plucked out of the political ether because they have the look and feel of the kind of candidate who can win an election. That is what was interesting to me about the connections there. And I just think that so much of what this movie talks about, as far as the shallowness of little campaigns, is still relevant in Nate's politics 50, something years later.
SPEAKER_01Certainly. And I do want to stress. That my really good is very high praise. In fact, I was I was a little cautious about reviewing this movie. But then when I did review it, I re I remember saying to myself, boy, this is much better than I had remembered. And that when I when I was watching it, I must have been in the throes of watching just one spectacular 70s film after another. And since it wasn't, you know, kind of a masterpiece landmark type film, I sort of devalued it, I think, in in comparison with the others. But seeing it now sort of stand alone, as was as is true with so many 70s films, I think, it's its kind of inherent strengths stood out when it was there alone on its own feet. So I I really do think it's it's an excellent movie.
SPEAKER_00So I I want to it's interesting you had that experience because I'd always liked this film a lot, but I didn't I can't say that I was, you know, um that I thought it was like a masterpiece or anything like that. But I mean when I watched it again, I liked it way more than the the times I seen it previously. And it it struck me as a much more subtle and much more complex film than I think it's popularly understood to be. So the the main thrust of this movie is that Robert Redford is is the son of a former governor of California. Um he is a public interest lawyer, you know, classic sort of 70s liberal I mean would be today even liberal sort of job. He gets recruited by Peter Boyle, who's wonderful in this movie, and we've seen, we've done a number of Peter Boyle films uh so far. Recruited to run for the US Senate. But basically, you know, as told from the beginning, you're not gonna win. You're running against this Republican named Crocker Jarman, who is very popular, but you can say whatever you want to say. And as the film goes along, McKay, who starts off by saying whatever he thinks and not worrying about the implications, realizes he can win and begins to trim his sails in order to end up winning this election, which he does. Uh, which then leads to one of the great uh endings of a 70s movie uh we ever. Um and so that's basically the story is kind of uh it's about the workings of a campaign, but it's also about uh, if you will, the corruption of an idealistic politician in Robert Redford. Yes. I want to get to this in a second about how much we think Redford is, or Redford's character is a really serious politician. But before we do that, I want to mention Jeremy Larner, uh, who wrote the screenplay. Now, Jeremy Larner was a speechwriter for the uh the Gene McCarthy campaign, 1968. He wrote a book about uh that campaign called Nobody Knows. Um when I wrote my 68 book, I interviewed him. My my story about this is that uh we went on his on his porch, we talked for like an hour or so, and as I'm walking out, I just happened to look to my right and I noticed the fireplace. And on the fireplace, there is one thing, and that is his Academy Award. Just sitting there randomly. I said, Oh hey, let's academy award. It's like, oh yeah, you want to hold it? I'm like, yeah, it'd be kind of fun. I picked it up, had his name on it. Very cool. Um so Lerner uh wrote this campaign, and it's clear that it's influenced by his experience on the McCarthy campaign. But I think I have to just mention that his criticisms of McCarthy and a lot of the key criticisms of McCarthy are quite different from Bill McKay's character. In this movie, McKay, as I said, trimmed his sails in order to get elected. McCarthy didn't do any of those things. In fact, one of the big criticisms of McCarthy was that he didn't really try very hard, especially after the candidate Robert Kennedy was assassinated, to win the nomination at the convention in Chicago. Um he didn't do the things that a candidate does if they actually want to be president. And in fact, Lerner was very critical of McCarthy and was critical of him throughout the years afterward. I think McCarthy, you know, deserves a lot of a lot of credit for what he did in that campaign, but a lot of the criticisms of his lack of um um what's it called? Not stamina, his lack of enthusiasm uh for the campaign are fair. Um so it's interesting that but I clearly learner is basing this on his experience having worked on campaigns.
SPEAKER_01Yes. But I think it's more about how the campaign gets overtaken by events. I don't think that you know, and we already talked about this offline that that that Redford is supposed to be uh a stand-in for McCarthy in any way. I think it's you know right down to the football, he's supposed to be more of a Kennedy-esque figure.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Right. Kennedy-esque figure. But uh I mean why? Because he he's good looking? I mean, I guess.
SPEAKER_01No, I think it's the looks. He has it's the name, the looks, the football. Um but also there was this one moment where he's campaigning and he kind of climbs on top of a car. I thought that was straight out of the Bobby Kennedy campaign. It was just I almost thought a flashback.
SPEAKER_00You know, it's funny. There's there's moments in this film that are also out of the McCarthy campaign. There was a moment, I think, when he was in Indianapolis, perhaps. I forget where exactly, when he went to approach a bunch of um uh kids, black kids playing basketball, and they saw this whole gaggle of photographers and politicians and they ran away thinking they were in trouble. The same thing is done in this film as well. Um There's also I think the the scene where uh the candidate McKay gets punched in the face by somebody. I think that's happened to McGovern, perhaps at some point. Maybe it's chances are I mean, yeah, not George McGovern. Yeah, chance that he needs to alienate some people. Um but I you know, in general, I I I you're right, but I to me like the McKay character. Okay, what's interesting about you say about the Kennedy thing is that the criticism of McKay's character is that A, he kind of goes back from what he leap seems to believe in, but also his whole appeal is because as his father, played by Melvin Douglas, says, he's cute.
unknownRight?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I I think I have I think I have more fond of the character than you are. I think he's presented to us as a as a not as a maybe senatorial timber, but as a person of substance, that he's hardworking as a public interest lawyer and seems to know what he's doing and seems to accomplish things if, as Peter Boyle says to him, on a relatively small scale. So I think he's presented to us as a well-intentioned person and a person of integrity and a person of some intelligence who gets things done. And we also, there's a nice off-screen backstory. He's kind of alienated from both of his parents, actually. Certainly from his father, the governor, but also even from his mother, who he says, I saw her last month, which is an interesting thing to say about your mom. Right. And so and I also think what the phrase he used about trimming his sails is certainly right, but it's I think it's a little I think he is somewhat manipulated by the Peter Boyle character in that regard, who kind of takes him by the hand, draws him into the campaign, and then and that he, I think, is somewhat responsible for tailoring him in that way. And I think I love Peter Boyle's performance in this movie. I want to talk a little bit more about it. But I think he is I think we like him as a character, but he's a very manipulative man.
SPEAKER_00Let's get into this because the movie the movie begins is is wonderful. It is is basically election night, uh, one uh I assume two year or two before this race happens in California, with a candidate who has lost. Boyle's working for him along with Alan Garfield. And it's so interesting because what the what it does in the scene is it juxtaposes the scenes of the candidate and his family looking absolutely shell-shocked, disconsolate over losing. And meanwhile, the consultants, played by Boyle and Garfield, are talking about, you know, we won two out of three, and you know, we're gonna go on to the next race in California, and oh, let me get my golf club out of your car. They come across as soulless.
SPEAKER_02Yes.
SPEAKER_00Um, and they don't care about whether Kennedy wins or loses, as far as like from a policy standpoint, from an ideological standpoint. Right. It's all just a game to them. That's how they come across. And and certainly I think uh Garfield's character even more so than Boyle.
SPEAKER_01And I think Garfield's character is supposed to be, let's use the word, homage to the political uh wizard David Garth, who also um took Ed Koch and dragged him from the left to the center. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Right. And won him and helped him win the mayor's race in New York.
SPEAKER_01But of course, Alan Garfield, another great, great 70s player. You know, we've seen him in Nashville, we've seen him in the conversation. He always brings this incredible menacing intensity to any role that he has. And he it's a little more subtle here, but he does it here. He's he's a he's a treasure. I'm always happy when Alan Garfield shows up anywhere.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell He's one of my favorite creators in the film. And and it's it's interesting about him. He is even more cynical than Boyle. He's very coarse, he's very cynical, and he's like a perfect encapsulation of the modern, at least at that point, political campaign consultant. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Absolutely. And so the movie goes, all right with Boyle going to California trying to recruit McKay to run. And his his basically his thing to him is like, you can do whatever you want to do. You can say whatever you want to say, you're not gonna win. He gives him this matchbook and says, you lose. And and I think the assumption is there's no one can beat this Crocker-Jarman candidate. And so that that's how McKay runs initially, but then it becomes clear, and it's interesting the way it's presented to him. It's not like you have a chance of winning. It's presented as you're gonna get 30% of the vote and you're gonna embarrass yourself. Well, but you want to embarrass yourself? No.
SPEAKER_01Then you need to actually start thinking about how you're the part of Boyle's seduction and manipulation. 100%. Yes. Before I get into that, I just want to pause and say, Peter Boyle, you know, is I mean, there's Robert Redford as a star of the movie, but Peter Boyle is a star in this movie. And Peter Boyle often plays marginal and strange characters. And he he does seem to even come across as a person who is a little bit odd in in real life. And yet this is a straight character and a straight performance, and he pulls it off. I think it's probably the best representation of what he can do in the movies when he's not playing an overly drawn character that's kind of a Peter Boyle character type. And so I love this movie for giving us that that opportunity to see Peter Boyle be a great actor.
SPEAKER_00I agree. I mean, we saw him in in Eddie Coyle. He was great in that film, but he plays a low-level hood who uh gets Eddie Coyle killed. We saw him in uh The Taxi Driver plays a very strange The Wizard, exactly. Um I mean I we we talked about this at one point, we didn't discuss it in this podcast, but the uh the movie Joe, he plays uh um like a working-class um vigilante, I guess, for lack of a better term. And um and this film is a straight performance from Boyle. Yeah, he's great.
SPEAKER_01He's great in it. Trevor Burrus, Jr. It's not a typical Peter Boyle performance, but it shows the depth. And I'm sure I mentioned this when we talked about Taxi Driver, you know, who was the best man at Peter Boyle's wedding, John Lennon, you know, that has a lot of people. I didn't know that. Yes.
SPEAKER_00That's uh so I so here's what's interesting about this. So he tries to recruit McKay. He doesn't have to do much to get him on board with the campaign. It's it's interesting to me that you don't see a lot of hemming and hawing from Redford as you want to run. And there's a really interesting moment, I think we're I'd say you see hemming. Maybe not a lot of hemming and hawing, but a little bit of hemming. Maybe some hemming, but not a ton. And what's interesting is there's a great scene with him and his wife played by uh Karen Carlson, who, by the way, is really great in this film. And she says, Well, now he's gonna have to uh register to vote. Yeah. And also she says something that, well, he has the power she says about McKay. And I I it's not really spelled out. And a lot of things in the movie, by the way, are not spelled out. A lot of things in the movie are very subtly done and are and are they're not explained. And I never I that line always stuck with me. What does she mean by that? And I my sense of it was that she meant he has this power, this charisma. He has this sex appeal, and that's what will help him if you and which by the way is also a little bit of a veiled attack on him, which we will learn more about later in the film.
SPEAKER_01Yes. And also, you know, even though he and his father are estranged, he has the built-in name recognition. Trevor Burrus, Jr. He does. And he's very factor. I think he has name automatic name recognition, I think he has charisma, and he's attractive. I mean, those things are not necessarily all going together, but he has that it's a great package. But I want to get back to the point I was making about Boyle. So Boyle recruits him by saying, you lose, but then as you observed, and it's about a third of the way into the picture. I think if you were doing those kind of plot point graphs, I think that this is where Act One ends and Act Two begins. Yes. He's won the nomination. And then Boyle says to him, Well, have you seen these numbers? You know, you're and that's when he says, you're not gonna lose, you're gonna get crushed. And he says, if this continues, and and and Redford McKay says, you know, well, I could just drop out. And he says, you know, you can't drop out. You're the Democratic nominee for United States Senator. He literally says this to him, then he wins the nomination. Yes. But that's where the manipulation comes in. He gets him in with the free pass. You're not gonna win, you can do whatever you want. And then when he gets the nomination, then he circles back and says, but you don't want to be embarrassed. Right? You want to and so in that sense, it's Boyle more than I think McKay or Redford who's who's the who's trimming the sails here.
SPEAKER_00That's what I think is so great about this film, because the obvious way to play this is for him to say, hey, look, you're only down by 15 points. You can win this thing if you do X, Y, and Z. He doesn't say that. He plays on his pride. He says, you're going to look, you're going to be embarrassed. You're going to lose in a way that is going to, you know, discredit you. Yes. And, you know, as a guy who has a battle with his father, who won numerous campaigns in California, I mean, it I think he's playing on that sense. He doesn't want to be humiliated, he doesn't want to be embarrassed. He wants to, you know, do a better job than or not. He doesn't want to look like the sort of fail son of his dad. And I think it's a very subtle way that he gets him to kind of begin to think more about how can I actually win the race.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Yes. And I do think it's not that Redford's character, Matt McKay, is not, is not devious or shallow in that way. I think he just gets dragged along. And so and finally there's that moment, I think before a debate or something, where uh Boyle says to him, You got to change your tie, and Redford says, you know, why? And then he says, Oh, never mind. You know, he's like, I know. You must have a reason why I have to wear a different tie. So just give you the different tie, and I'll put on I'm done asking you all these stupid questions. I'm just I'm trying to do what you're saying because obviously the the the momentum of the movie is they get closer and closer to actually having a chance.
SPEAKER_00Yes. So but this gets something in I I I I want to bring this up now because it's it's a point that has uh really bothered me in this this watching of the film. So let me tell a quick story about this for a moment. Um I don't know if you've ever heard this story, but Dan Quayle, when he was the vice president, you know, for George uh H.W. Bush in 1988, when he was picked out of obscurity. And he said about this movie that this is one of his favorite films, and it inspired him to go into politics. Which uh it suggests that Dan Quayle completely misunderstood what this film was uh saying. And it's in a way it's it's it's it's it's fascinating. He thinks this movie is like uh a positive exploration of politics when it's a negative exploration of politics. And of course, you know, Quayle had his appeal was partly because he looked a little like Robert Redford. He was a good-looking guy. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Like like Claude Raines in Casablanca, I'm shocked, shocked to learn that Dan Quayle misunderstood this movie.
SPEAKER_00I know, but it's it's I think it's sort of fascinating that he didn't understand this was a this was a satire. Yeah. But one thing about this movie that is that that to but to my point I'm trying to get here, to get to, um, is that the arc of the film is that Redford starts off and he is willing to say whatever he wants to say. And he goes, he has this meeting with a bunch of reporters and he says, like, what do you think about bussing? And he goes, I support it. And they're all the reporters are like, Wow, look at this guy. Yeah he's not messing around. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Pro-bussing, pro-abortion, pro-pro-busing pro-abortion.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. And he gives this speech at this convention for Democrats, and it's a very uncomfortable moment. Brilliantly handled by Michael Ritchie, by the director, wonderfully edited. We used to have like the coughing in the background, the twinkling of the glasses, and and it's and he's having a hard time seeing the audience because of the bright lights. And he gives this kind of very underwhelming speech about, you know, we we need to uh uh new challenges 1972, and I want you to give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm gonna watch that, and then I watch the speech he gets at the end of the movie. Right. And there's not a huge difference between what he says in the beginning and what he says at the end.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell, but there's a huge difference in the way he says it, and there's a huge difference in the way he's shot. They really they go all triumph of the will in the second, you know, they've got the swelling soundtrack to when he does it.
SPEAKER_00The th the looks and the faces of the people in the audience, like, oh, they're so moved by this.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Yes, and also his framing from below and on the side, the camera's just loving this guy in the second speech. And you know, it's very it is, it's very awkward. It's it's really good work uh the way they they shoot those two scenes. It's not just it's the con obviously the lesson of the movie is the content is irrelevant, it's what it looks like. Right.
SPEAKER_00But that's kind of what's interesting, because you could this is what got me thinking about this it's kind of an indictment, less so of the political process and more of voters. There is an element here where Werner is poking fun at the voters. Aaron Powell Because really go ahead.
SPEAKER_01That's why I was just a that's why I think you're being a little too harsh on on McKay and on on Redford's character. I think the real villain in the piece is the voters, that if you know McKay's to have a chance, he's got to do all this nonsense uh if he if he's going to and you know, this is what all politicians personally tell themselves. I will do this because if I do this, then I can win something and then I can actually do the things I want to do. But to quote John Castavin, it's of course they never do, but but that's what that's the story they tell themselves, right? I have to jump through these hoops, even though it's ridiculous, because I have these important things that I want to accomplish.
SPEAKER_00So here's what's interesting about the point you just made. The again, the arc of the film is that is that McKay is idealistic and he has all these ideas of what he wants to do, and he'll say whatever he has to say, and he and he trims his sails, use that expression again, in order to get elected. But I don't think that's actually really true, because you don't really see him as somebody who is all that substantive. He is speaking in platitudes at the beginning of the movie, he's speaking in platitudes at the end of the movie. The difference, as you put it, is the response he gets from the audience. And what I think is interesting is that this idea that like he is corrupted by the process, I'm not so sure that's really true, actually. It would be true if he was a more serious substantive person, but I don't think he really is.
SPEAKER_01So this is where we'd we disagree a bit. Maybe it's just that it happens too fast, but I think when we're introduced to him at the start of the movie, he's presented to us as a serious person who gets good things done. He's in several situations, he's juggling chores, he's in command of a small courtier of helpers who are working on uh three or four public interest cases at the same time. He seems to know which buttons to push and what needs to get done and these confrontations with the people that he's dealing with, it's just very small scale. And he boasts of, you know, putting in 20-hour days and and and and being you know thrilled with it. And he says he's happy. And Boyle says, you know, well, clams are happy, right? Clams are happy. Right. So I do think we're invited to see him as a person of substance, even if it's very fleeting at the very beginning of the movie.
SPEAKER_00Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Well, but that's but you're I think you're confling two different things there. He can be a person who gets things done, who has like a certain agenda items. Doesn't mean that he's somebody who has lots of ideas about politics. It's why he probably wasn't involved in politics. And so I don't I don't get the impression that I guess about a different way. It's not as though he comes across as somebody who is like talk like but like to go back to McCarthy analogy, McCarthy talked to a lot of serious issues in the campaign in 68, and he continues to do that until he dropped out of the race in Chicago. McKay's character is his is sort of platitudinous at the beginning and platitudinous at the end. It's not as though I get the maybe I'm being a little harsh on him, but I do feel like there's an element here where he's kind of a bit of a lightweight as a politician. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I just think this is one of our productive disagreements because I I I like the character. He's obviously renounced everything his father stands for and renounced, you know, politics. And and even in the in the first meeting, one of Redford's affiliates says to Peter Boyle, politics is bullshit. And Boyle says, Oh, thanks. I was wondering what it was. Which was a nice turn of phrase. But Redford has, you know, in a way renounced the fakery of politics, renounced many of the privileges that must have come with being his father's son, is fully estranged from his father. And yet you see him, we I think we're presented to him as an effective do gooder, if on a small scale. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: 100%. Agree with that, yes.
SPEAKER_00But then you go lightweight. Aaron Ross Powell Well I guess my point is that I I don't feel as though the movie really makes a compelling argument that this was somebody who would who had a lot of interesting political ideas about politics. Trevor Burrus Right. He does not have interesting ideas about politics. Trevor Burrus, maybe lightweight is unfair, but he's not somebody who would and maybe that's the point. He hadn't this is not somebody who spent a lot of time thinking about what he could achieve as a politician. We see that especially at the end.
SPEAKER_02Right.
SPEAKER_00Right? And so you see that throughout the film. And and I think there's something to be said for the fact that, like, you know, Redford understands what he's doing is kind of vacuous. Yes. Right. The wonderful scene in the back of the car where he d he pretends to give this speech and he's like, you know, uh ta what is it he says? He says about the um all you white honkies out there. Like he's. A little bit. Right. He understands what he's doing is kind of um uh silly. He gets it, but he still does it. And there are moments when he tries to sort of break out of that that mold at the at the end of his debate with his opponent. Um maybe for a brief moment in the speech he gives at the end, but not really. He I mean, even in that moment in the debate when he kind of breaks out of like his mold, he's still just kind of talking about platitudes.
SPEAKER_01I mean, maybe talking about things no one talks about. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Late entry. I mean, that comes late in the movie. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: It does. It does. And his advisors, both of them, you know, Boyle and Garcot, are absolutely apoplectic that he could actually raise pointed issues of substance at the end of the debate that had gone extremely well for him because he had pretty much said nothing or said whatever platitudes they he he was supposed to say throughout. So there is that original person at least peeking out there.
SPEAKER_00I guess. I mean, I think what's great about that moment, especially is that when he leaves the stage, you know, Garfield wants to tear him a new one. He's so furious of him for doing this. And then McKay's dad comes in and who up to that point had not really endorsed him. And he endorsed him and says, You were great. And Redford looks turns to him and says, I don't know if they even heard what I was saying. And his dad, Melvin Douglas, says it doesn't matter. Yes.
SPEAKER_01And Melvin Douglas It's a fantastic moment. It's wonderful throughout healing. It's a small role, just three or four scenes, but he's excellent in all of them. And it's a charming backstory, right? Because Melvin Douglas was married to Helen Cahagan Douglas, a three-term congresswoman who famously lost the her Senate race to a scorched earth campaign via our close personal friend Richard Nixon. So you have, you know, and Melvin Douglas was a known New Dealer. So to have him kind of pop up as this rough and tumble political governor of California, it's it's it has its it has its additional charm there, but he is he is wonderful in this small role.
SPEAKER_00I think I guess that I just to put a bow on this, I think what I find what I makes this so compelling to me is I think Redford's arc in the film is not maybe what you'd expect in a satire like this. It's uh he's a little more complex of a character and a little more of a character at f who is who you can be critical of. Right? I mean, I think in a movie like this, I think the obvious thing to do is but to treat McKay as like sort of a pure guy who gets corrupted by this, or you know. And I don't think that's really what this film is is trying to say. I don't think that's what this movie is about. I think there is a criticism here of Redford's character that he really hasn't thought about this stuff. And there's a certain arrogance in thinking he should be a senator when he really hasn't spent time thinking about these issues. Yeah, I mean it's a 70s movie, right? So our artists are flawed. Absolutely. A hundred percent, which is again, I think a movie today would have very different presentation of this character. Let me just, before we get too far afield, let me just say something about Robert Redford. I think this might be I don't know his best performance, but certainly in the top two or three of his best performances. I think this is a perfect character for him to play. And I think, and we've we've talked about him in the past. I think that he there's an element of where he's a really good-looking guy, he's a great movie star, he's not always a great actor. I think in this movie, this he he does a delivers a great, nuanced acting performance.
SPEAKER_01Yes, and but it I think uh a challenge for Redford or a challenge for Redford's reputation is he makes it look so effortless. Absolutely. And he's and he is an extremely handsome man. So you have this extremely handsome man, a movie star, and he's just inhabiting this role, but there's some really serious acting going on here, and it's almost unnoticeable. And I I think you're right to call it out as as one of s one of his better performances, and he was also a very important force behind the movie. I mean, Russell was a person of substance, and he wanted, he was interested in these themes, and he wanted to make this movie made, and it is, you know, he had a big hand in putting the putting the project together. And in fact, it was in engaging a lot of the uh political journalists that he was w working with or interviewing or doing things with in developing the candidate that he started to learn of the Watergate scandal long before it broke as a national news story because all the journalists knew about these things that they were kind of chatting away about it, uh even if it wasn't a big news story at the time. And that's what got him on the trail of all the president's men. Right, right.
SPEAKER_00I think the other thing too is that um again, this is a flawed character, right? Yes. He has a doesn't have a great relationship with his wife. Like it's interesting, she has a photographer come over and take pictures of of their of their house. Right. Uh she's kind of appears to be uh enjoying the attention of the campaign as as he is, but she but he he criticizes her for it and gets very upset with her about it. And uh even more interesting, of course, he has this uh which is never really spelled out, but he's clearly having an affair with a woman who is who's who, by the way, her role is it's it's it the cast list it says groupie. Uh and she is somebody who follows around the campaign candidates. You see him early on, you see her talking to him, uh, you know, whispering in his ear, and then later you see them coming out of a hotel room together.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Yes. So there's a lot going on there. Let's break them, let's break them in two. The scene where he comes home and she has the camera crew there for Parade Magazine, I think it really confronts him with the shallowness of what he's doing. I mean, he eventually apologizes to her for berating her, you know, she sheds a few tears. I thought that was a decent moment for them as a couple. But I really, I don't think it was selfish, like, you know, I'm the center of attention and you're not. I think it was a real confrontation with, oh my God, look what look what we're doing, look what we've become. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Yes. And he takes it out on her to some extent. Yes. Yes. And so their relationship is a complex one. She's very interested in being the spouse of the senator. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Right. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: This little snippet at the end of the movie where she talks about wanting to live in Georgetown and get a place in Georgetown in Washington. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Yes.
SPEAKER_01And she's also very attractive. And you know, she'll be like a salon hostess in Washington, and kind of socialite type. And there are many such people in history. And so you know, I think that matters a little complex. But the other issue you mentioned about the affair he has.
SPEAKER_00Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Wait, before you get into the affair, can we just mention the fact that the op there is a scene in the beginning of the film where they're supposed to go to this fundraiser, he doesn't want to go, he says we should walk on the beach. She yells at him, and then they end up making up by having sex. The end of the film, it's set in the same room in the bedroom, and uh they don't even speak. And it is very clear that there is a huge wedge has been driven between them by this campaign.
SPEAKER_01And there's multiple symmetries in this movie. So I like the two bedroom scenes symmetrically. And you already mentioned the opening of the movie. The movie essentially opens and closes in in the same setting of the wake of a campaign, one fail, one success. But the it's a real attractive bookend. But I've always thought that she kind of thought, well, he was under a lot of stress during the campaign. Well, things will get better once we're in Washington.
SPEAKER_00Well, I mean, I don't think so because he has, as the, as we used to say back in the day, a zipper problem, uh, which is that he is basically having uh an affair with this groupie. And I again I mentioned this earlier. I get the impression this is not the first time this has been a problem in their marriage. And there's just two things about that. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01No, you're running, you're running, you gotta back that up in a screenplay.
SPEAKER_00Well, I think when she says he has the power. I think she's talking about his his charisma and his appeal to women. I think that's kind of what she's kind of hinting at there.
SPEAKER_01But she's a very attractive person. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: She's beautiful. And she's also beautiful. Presented to us as a capable professional, uh, as a photographer, and she seems kind of confident if they wanted- I mean, there were there would have been other ways to present her if they weren't scoring. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: That's fair. That's fair. Maybe I'm just extrapolating. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Because I think the point is is more subtle, as our close personal friend Henry Kissinger used to say, uh, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: And so as he kind of gets involved in this campaign, I mean, he has the affair with this with this groupie. I had I was very upset because I thought she was kind of stylized to look a bit like Gloria Steinem. Maybe that was my imagination. I had a similar thought, actually.
SPEAKER_00That's until you said that. Yes.
SPEAKER_01But she was Well, in 1972, that look would have been more clearly associated with Gloria Steinem. And as an enormous admirer of Gloria Steinem, I was kind of irritated. Steinem was very active politically, and she was active in the McGovern campaign, about that same time. And so I was a little upset that they might have been throwing some shade at her. Oh, interesting. I hadn't thought about that. That's interesting. Subtly in the movie. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: But we see this multiple times. There's a a woman who wants him to autograph her breasts or bra or something, and another woman kind of in a pre-Monica Lewinsky moment kind of flashes her panties at him. And it's and I think that's all designed to say when you're a powerful political figure, these opportunities will be presented to you. And it can almost be-and so I couldn't decide whether I thought the movie was being subtle with that, because we never see them in action. We see them spending a lot of We see them come out of a hotel room and he's late for a meeting, and it's pretty clear that that's no, there are she's in like four different scenes, and they're always closer together, especially in that last one you mentioned, than two strangers should be. But we don't ever see them have a conversation. We don't ever see them kind of in the sack, you know, in any literal way. And I I had mixed feelings about this, so I was curious to know what you thought. Because either the movie was doing it subtly, or the movie was afraid of taking the character on that much.
SPEAKER_00So if that was true, the last part, I don't think they would have showed the two of them coming out of the hotel room. Because up to that point, you could maintain some, you know, plausible deniability that something's happening between the two of them. At that point, you cannot, right? It is fair, they're both coming out of a hotel room. It's fairly obvious that what just what just took place. So I do think that the point of this is to present McKay as a as a more complex figure and morally ambiguous figure. And that's what, again, I I go back to what I said earlier. I think there's that's a big part of this movie, is that is that Redford's character is somebody who is not black and white. Right? This is this is and I think it could have been connected that way. Yeah, go ahead.
SPEAKER_01But it's it is 1972 out there. And I I don't think this is this would have been coded as monumental a transgression as it would be today. And this part of this reminded me of the 1979 Alan Alden movie. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Yeah, yeah. Okay. But there the affair is overt, and it'd be that's a big part of the movie. And of course, there, you know, Joe comes around to the end and we're and and we love him again.
SPEAKER_00But but that's interesting. You said it because I would actually take a maybe slightly opposite point of view, which is that, you know, now people having affairs, it's not really as I think it's it's taken as seriously, or maybe because of post post-Clinton Lewinsky. But you know, go back to like 1988 and Gary Hart, right? He jumped out of the camp a campaign because he was allegedly having an affair. Yes. I think I think that it was people knew these things happened, I'm sure. They certainly knew it happened with certainly rumors of that with with John F. Kennedy, but to have it sort of in your face, I think it does take uh Redford down a notch. I also want to mention one other point too, which is the scene where he meets Natalie Wood. Yeah. And like the attraction between the two of them is palpable, right? I mean, she's it helps that it's Natalie Wood and Robert Redford, but yes. It 100% helps that it's Natalie Wood and Robert Redford. I love this scene because they are just vibing off of each other, right? There's this guy trying to talk Natalie Wood, and she's just kind of like, you know, not interested because she's clearly enamored with Robert Redford, and he's clearly enamored with her. And it just again, it plays up this idea that he really kind of gets off on the attention that he gets from being a political candidate.
SPEAKER_01But again, I think this speaks to our subtle disagreement about the character. I thought I saw that more as an illustration of the seduction of power, right? That when you're in that situation and you're suddenly, you know, have these opportunities made it to you, because most people would not have Natalie Wood flirting with them backstage with a fundraiser. And, you know, I like to think of myself as a decent fellow, but that's gotta be these things have to be temptations that are presented to people that that they have to confront one way or the other.
SPEAKER_00But I don't think that like you sudden he suddenly gets off on the power and all of a sudden starts thinking with the group again hitting on Natalie Wood. I think that there's something that probably happened before. Trevor Burrus, Jr. That's why I was saying earlier. I do think that like there's some subtle reference to the fact that this is not the first time that he is he is strayed, I guess is what it comes down to.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Yeah. And why I think you're overreading that element is because I think if the movie wants to be a rumination on what are the consequences of getting into this, then one of the consequences are this is what you become. You become a person who is, you know, you're like a like a baseball player, right? You're you're you're you're young, you're traveling in cities, and you have scores of opportunities that normal people would never be presented with. Or a rock musician, or uh, you know, a high-powered politician, suddenly there's a you are swimming in a different sea than you were previously.
SPEAKER_00But isn't there like a subtle notion here that politics attracts a certain kind of individual, a kind of individual who really enjoys the kind of attention that they I mean, I look, I don't think it's really I'm going to limb and saying that to be a politician you have to be a bit of a narcissist. I mean, I think that's not that's not really a stretch. And I do think that like there is and again, maybe I'm overreading it, but I do think there's a notion here that you know Bill McKay is maybe idealistic and he maybe worked with, you know, farm workers and so forth, but he really got off on the attention that he got from this, and that this this is something that really drove him to want to do this.
SPEAKER_01Yes.
SPEAKER_00But again, actually, that drove him to want to win. Right. Sure. That's actually the more important point. Didn't drive him against the race, but once he was in the race, the attention he's receiving makes him say, you know what? I wouldn't mind winning this thing. Right. I wouldn't mind being a full-time senator.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell I think that's right. But I do think on the on whether he had strayed before, I would need the movie to throw me at least one bone on that. I mean, you think you have it with the he's what he has the power. I would want the Trevor Burrus, it's not just that, but yes, yes, yes, I would want them to have a little conversation in that teary bedroom confrontation where she says something like, you know, we've gone through problems like this before, or you know, anything.
SPEAKER_00No, that's too much to come on, there's too much exposition. There's I do I think that it's it's subtly hinted at. I do, I I mean, that's what I think I that's what I like about this film. And and that gives us a good segue talking about Michael Ritchie who directed this movie. I think this is a brilliantly directed film. The fact that we're having this conversation, I think speaks to how well this film is put together and how many, how much subtlety there is in the presentation of these characters.
SPEAKER_01Yes, but I want to know how much of the greatness of this movie is Michael Ritchie. We'll never answer this question, and how much of the greatness of this movie is the combination of the script, the actors, and Victor Kemper, whose work here is monumentally great. This film we haven't really talked about, the fact that it's presented to us in very documentary style. Yes, and the work is astonishing and impeccable and so naturalistic and really beautiful. And there's there's, I don't think there's a clumsy shot throughout. And obviously the director is in charge, but Richie's, you know, I've always been puzzled by his career. We talked about this a little offline, where he has these four films from 69 to 75 that are kind of all 70s film winners. And then he did not go on to have a career we would associate with other notable directors of the era.
SPEAKER_00Well, the four films are Downhill Racer, which is a fantastic film, also starring um Robert Redford, Prime Cut and The Candidate both came out in 72, and then Smile. Now you left out, I will note the bad news bears. I did. And that's fair. Uh you also left out, I think Richie's greatest achievement, which is the 1985 movie Fletch, which is one of the great movies of the 1980s, in my, in my humble opinion.
SPEAKER_01Sure, but Prime Cut, you know, that's that's Gene Hackman and Lee Marvin. Uh I realize that.
SPEAKER_00It's Chevy Chase. But there isn't there is an M. Emmett Walsh cameo in that film. I mean, I'm joking, but I actually do love that movie when I saw it when I was a kid. It's one of those movies I in the 80s that I really enjoyed. But yeah, no, you're right. Richie's career after uh that smile is is pretty underwhelming, for lack of better term. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01And it's all and again, I always want to be cautious when we're criticizing the work of professionals here because you know what I just said is he was the director of four terrific movies, you know, which is four more. Yes. So I'm not, you know, I'm not, you know, they just say, well, where's the rest of your work, Mr. Ritchie? Trevor Burrus, Right. But it's still there's something enigmatic about the idea that he was associated with these significant films of this important era, and then didn't continue in that vein. Uh I don't I don't really I'm not really well versed in in the rest of his career. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00I I that's you know totally fair. And I think the one thing I'll say, you you mentioned how much is this screenplay and how much is is the editing. I mean, first of all, the screenplay is is brilliant. The editing is brilliant. But again, I mean, you know, ultimately the director, you know, gets credit for putting together the film. And and I think the decision to make this a more documentary-style film, that there's a lot of use of uh, I guess, a steady cam, the way some of these shots are framed, you mentioned earlier. I think the book ending of the speech gets the beginning to be to the end, the way that he that that Redford is presented in such a more effective and and almost um what's the word I'm looking for? Author not authoritarian, authoritative way. Uh and it's a i it's really well done. And it's and I love the the choice to put the music in there, swelling. It's it's really kind of brilliant, actually.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Yeah, and it has real energy and momentum. Um it's just a question for me of, you know, he directed Redford in Downhill Racer. My hunch is that Redford brought the project to him. He did not bring the project to Redford. And Redford's, you know, it's like uh the Warren Beatty problem where you have the powerful producer star there. You know, I I would suspect he's calling some shots, you know, literally and figuratively along the way as well. And the talent attached is just stupendous. Um but again, yeah, the director's director is is at the helm. And so I'm not taking the movie away from Richie so much as saying it's it's a mystery to me how he had how he did these things. And then I w I guess I uh the fairer word to use is drift a bit. I mean, you know, you have to it's hard, it's a tough business, and you have to get work, and there's nothing wrong with that. But uh the fact is, as a director, it seems to me, looking over the later balance of his career, he was a capable director for hire. Which is definitely a director with something to say.
SPEAKER_00Uh a lot of the directors we've talked about on this podcast have had that experience. Um we I think we attractioned uh Francis Fort Coppola, who I think obviously his his um best work is some of the best work ever put on film uh in American cinema. But his later work is not as as exciting or as as good as the early stuff. Um we talked about some other folks as well. I'm trying to think uh well, I mean, well, the contrast is Sidney Lumet. And I didn't mention, by the way, one of the films I did see of his recently, For the Devil Knows You're Dead, which is a monumentally great film. And he's a direct he's a director who was pretty much consistently good from beginning to end. You're right, but a lot of these directors, it's really hard to maintain, to do that many good films one after the other, right? I mean, the Beatles made great moves beginning to end. They are the exception in the music business, right? Most musicians have a few duds in there.
SPEAKER_01But I do want to give still one more shout out to the work of Kemper here. He, I was thinking about this a lot. We we must have seen him three or four times already. I think he did Eddie Coyle. Yes. Um, and uh he was one of the many DPs on Mikey and Nicki, and there's probably at least one other that he was involved in. And it occurred to me that there are about a dozen just great, great DPs working in this era. And and so and they just populate so many of our films.
SPEAKER_00Absolutely. We we often go over the same people over and over again in in the in the cinematography. Um we have to just get to the end of this movie because the end is really Well, we can't get to the end because we haven't done justice to the whole Melvin.
SPEAKER_01We talked about it.
SPEAKER_00Oh my god, you know what's so funny you said this? I literally was looking at my notes and I was like, oh, we have to meet the Melvin Douglas line also. And I was like, I you're right. Okay, so Melvin Douglas plays the former governor who's the father of Bill McKay, and word leaks out that he's going to endorse um uh McKay's opponent, Crocker Jarman. By the way, let's give a shout to Don Porter. He plays Crocker Jarman. He's great in this. Oh, yes, he is. And uh his character is a perfect example of like a Republican politician of the 1970s. Like so and there's a great moment, by the way, where he's he where Jarman is out on the trunk uh stump talking to people, and he meets this person and doesn't know who he is, and he quickly turns his head to his aide who whispers in his ear who he is, and then he turns back perfectly like, Oh yeah, Bill, it's great to see you. It's such a great little moment in the film.
SPEAKER_01Um he is wonderful, and and you know, it's almost as if they got some you know, that he retired from politics. And took this role.
SPEAKER_00100%. 100%. I totally agree. So they get to the So anyway, so there's word that McKay might endorse him, Crocker Jarman, so his son goes to talk to him. And up to this point, he did not want his father involved at all in the campaign.
SPEAKER_01Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Yes, this was a very specific sore spot, even from the very first meeting with Peter Boyle's character, where he's, you know, Peter Boyle mentions his father and he says, My father, you know, I getting my father involved in this. And Boyle says, if that's what you want, fine. And so this is very, very sensitive. They are obviously a strange. She had obviously rejected his father's life. And then, yes, there's this crisis emerges where there's an Evan Zanovac column that's going to say that he's going to come out and and give an endorsement to his opponent, which would be problematic to say the least.
SPEAKER_00To say the least. And he goes to meet with him, and they're sitting around drinking beers, and he says, Do you want anything? And Redford says, anyone running for the Senate has to want something. It's such a brilliantly delivered line. And of course, he does want something. He wants his endorsement, which he doesn't get until he shines in the debate, interestingly enough. He does not get in. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01But he first wants him to suppress the rumor that he's gonna support the other guy, and he does not have a lot of things. Which he does, which he does. Trevor Burrus, Jr. But that's that line is so perfect because you know they're presumably talking about a lunch order, but you know but that beautiful line. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Every anyone wants to be able to do that. Anyone running for the sense of has to want something.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it's it's a great, it's a great moment. There is also a wonderful moment later in the film where Redford meets with this union boss that's a sort of meeting brokered by his father, and he's really insulting to the union boss, actually. Really which actually made me think a little bit like of Bobby Kennedy, who was very skeptical of the unions in general, and had very had a very bad relationship with with Muffly, except for like the UAW with most of the union heads who would, at least in 68, all endorsed um um Humphrey. So and again, like you you kind of get this. It's funny because his father is like the politician who who you know had, I assume had won multiple terms, who was like a hero in California. And he's just as cynical, if not more, than the people around Redford.
SPEAKER_01Absolutely. And that meeting, you know, was also that's probably the most cynical bit in the entire film because they are really dislike each other. I took him as uh the head of the California Teamsters or something, and he looked to be like the head of the California Teamsters. And they do not like each other, they do not get along, but they both make the calculation that they're better off being on that stage together. And it's that that is the most profoundly cynical exchange.
SPEAKER_00Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Redford's a great line goes, I go, I think you know, the union guys say we have a lot in common. And Redford goes, I don't think we have shit in common.
SPEAKER_02Yes.
SPEAKER_00And um but they do. They both want to win, right? That's what they have in common. And they both end up showing up for this you know, uh uh rally in which the the guy the union guy basically gives him the the stamp of approval. Yes. Redford is happy to take it. I mean, this is again the cynicism of politics.
SPEAKER_01And also a very well-cast character. That guy kind of freaked me out.
SPEAKER_00So let's get to the end because I think like this is a very cynical film.
SPEAKER_01Because it's one more line, he wins. Yes. And Douglas says to him something like, Congratulations. You're a politician.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell You're a politician now. And he says it as a compliment, do we think? Or is he is he kind of sticking it in there a little bit? I think you can do both.
SPEAKER_01I mean, I think so too.
SPEAKER_00I mean I think so too.
SPEAKER_01Because these are these people are estranged, and they're and I don't think that um he was ever really proud of his son, Redford, or what he did with his life. And when they he takes him out hunting and he shoots a rabbit and Redford recoils from it, these the these guys don't get along either. And I think that both things are going on. One is I think that Melvin Douglas is impressed, right? Anybody can run for a Senate, but to win the win and become a senator, that's an accomplishment. And that's what really gets Douglas' character to turn around. He wants to be associated with a winner, you know, as much as the next guy.
SPEAKER_00Trevor Burrus, Jr. Well, he but I think his earlier decision to to endorse him after the debate is because he thinks he won the debate, which it appears that he does, and he thinks he's gonna win. So actually what's interesting is that he doesn't really get behind his son until he thinks that he's going to actually prevail. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Exactly. Um doesn't want to be embarrassed either. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Yes. But so when he says so it's it's two things going on at the same time. When he says you're a politician now, I think that's I think that's that he's impressed. But I also think that he's sticking it to him because he's sticking to him. You used to, you know, give me the finger behind my back for being a politician. Well, now you're a politician.
SPEAKER_00Right. So I think that what's interesting about this film is that there's so many lines and things in this movie that really have sort of double meanings or that have the obvious meaning, you know, the outward meaning of him saying you're a politician, which is true, but also there's a there's an under underneath thing going on there as well, which is often how political rhetoric works, right? I mean, I I'm just gonna use an example from the news right now. I think it's interesting, is this, and I don't want to get into judging it, but there was this thing recently with John Osloff Center from from Georgia. He referenced this woman, Natalie Harp, who works for for Donald Trump. And he brought it up and he created this sort of firestorm. Now, when he did that, he knew what he was doing. He was trying to get attention for himself as somebody who was going to challenge Trump. He wanted to probably get pissed off at him, which they did. He wanted to raise his profile because he wants for president in 2028, which is what happened. So there's like double meanings to all this. There's what he said, and there's what he was trying to achieve by what he said. And a lot of this movie, I feel like, is really about the text and the subtext. And that's why I kind of think I love it so much, because there are so many different ways that you can interpret why people do the things that they do, and both for political reasons, but also for personal reasons. Um, and there's lots of different ways to interpret why Redford, this is I think his character is so complex. Why does he run in the first place? Why does he want to be senator? Don't do do his goals change? Does his mindset change? Does he get off on the attention of being a Senate candidate? I mean, I I to me that's what that line, but just in general, this film, there's just a lot of depth to this movie, more than I think you would usually get a political satire.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. I think that uh they uh that it operates on on those multiple levels.
SPEAKER_00I think political science often operate as kind of poking fun at politics. And this movie does that, but I don't know that it's the I mean, uh what do you think? It's at the focal point of the movie.
SPEAKER_01I think it is more about the way in which the process chews people up.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Yeah. I think that's right.
SPEAKER_01But that requires a a a more benign view of Redford's underlying character than than you than you walk around with. And I think we see that when he meets some of his kind of co-workers from the beginning of the movie, near the end of the movie, and they're kind of disgusted with him. And I think that implies that at least in their eyes, he's changed.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell No. But only one is disgusted. Another one, remember, he meets him after his rally and says, You're really getting you're doing something here. I think you're making a you're getting a uh um to people. They're listening to what you're saying.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell But he also says, I know the other guys are disgusted with you, but I realize that you have to do these stupid things in order to achieve these things.
SPEAKER_00Right, right. I mean, again, I think that the point we mentioned earlier that there there is the scene at the speech at the end with the swelling music and the faces of the people in the crowd who are inspired by this. I really do think that it is a very subtle stab at the electorate and how easily they can be swayed by, you know, sort of bread and circuses.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Yes. And the crowds at Jarman's rallies. I thought the movies took some cheap shots at those crowds, actually.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah. Did they feel a little 1930s Germany to you a bit? Trevor Burrus Well, also they they used a lot of not kind of Hollywood beautiful extras. Uh there's some of that. But do you remember the shot of him like with his picture behind him and sort of standing between the eyes of the picture? I mean it it is a little bit like harsh on the Republicans, I would say. Certainly. Certainly.
SPEAKER_01Trevor Burrus, Jr. The movie where it does have a certain political uh slant, although again, it's very kind of bitter and certainly not idealistic in any way. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00No. And so that gets us to the end of the film, which of course is that election night, it's now apparent that that McKay is going to win. He is sitting in his hotel room looking shell-shocked, for lack of a better term. His wife is talking about getting a place in Georgetown, and he's just sort of looking vacantly ahead, and he pulls Boyle out from, you know, they're going down to give his like his victory speech, pulls him out to the um elevator into another sip. And there's a great moment in the elevator, too, where this where this bus boy says to him, You're not supposed to be here. Yeah. And I thought it was like a very like unsubtle one of saying, like, you're not supposed to be a senator. This is not supposed to happen. Uh, he pulls him into this, into this abandoned, like, empty hotel room, and utters one of the great lines of 70s cinema. He says to says to to Peter Boyle, what do we do now?
SPEAKER_02Yes.
SPEAKER_00He won. What do we do now? And I mean, it's it's an incredibly cynical moment because it really does suggest that like that thought had never crossed his mind up until this point. Now, you could read it different ways, right? You could read it saying, you didn't think he was going to win. So he's like, what the hell do we do now? Right. Or it could be, I didn't think I didn't really think about what happens if I win, and I don't, I don't didn't really care about that on this campaign because the campaign was more about just winning over voters. So what the fuck are we supposed to do in this situation?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, it's, you know, it's a very attractive 70s ending because he wins, but he's lost. I mean, you know, he doesn't he he doesn't know what he's doing. He doesn't know the he's chased this victory for the entire picture, and now that he's achieved it, it doesn't have perhaps the thrill that he thought it would have. Or has he given up so much to get there that, you know, it is what what what of substance have we actually achieved?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell But I read it I a little-I mean to me it's sort of it's an in it's an indictment of the whole political campaign process. Yes. That the process of running for office has nothing to do with what happens when you actually get into office. Yes. Right? And there's various lines that he repeats in the movie about you know, it's weird. He says that to have two people decide the fate for 20 million people. That's not really what senators do, to be honest. That's not what governors do, what presidents do. Like it's there is like an exaggeration a little bit about all that, because that's what we do in politics, right? We we politicians always kind of over-emphasize what they can accomplish once they get into office, right? And they try to-and that's how they convince people to vote for them and support them. And um that there uh to me, that's like sort of the whole movie kind of be summed up in that sense of like just sort of suggesting that modern politics and modern campaigns are devoid of substance.
SPEAKER_01And it's also I think there's something about how Peter Boyle's character, he's done with him, right? He's gonna move, he's gonna move on to the next campaign. And so he was his, you know, his Sherpa through this entire experience. Um, and now I think he's I don't think he's gonna go to the Senate with him and be his chief of staff or anything like that. That's not that's not what he does for a living. And so he's really uh kind of abandoned at the end. I mean he's a senator and all, which is just you know marvelous. It's a really good job, I think. But but he had he it was Peter Boyle who, you know, in collaboration with Alan Garfield, who got him across the finish line. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00And and to your point, like there's a brief conversation about policy early on, but it's more about how do you answer certain questions, not to embarrass off. There's never any discussion inside the campaign about policy issues. Right. It's all about, you know, what tie do I wear? How do I look on television? You know, there's a moment when uh because dad says, I hear you have the the best advanced people in the business. Yes. Right. Advanced people have the least substantive job on a campaign. Their job is to go to the next city, to make sure that like the hotels are taken care of, that like, you know, the the dressing room has all the right stuff it's supposed to have, that like the crowd's gonna be there. They're not they're not policy people. And there really isn't any kind of discussion of substance. It's all about the specifics of how do you run for for office. Um and that is, again, I think that this movie is really satirized in the entire experience, but but I think it this this movie um casts a wide net in as far as it's of its criticisms.
SPEAKER_02Yes.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. I mean, uh again, from both the politicians to the consultants, uh to above all the voters. Uh all right. Uh anything else you want to want to talk about in this film? Or have we have we uh we rung it out?
SPEAKER_01I've definitely touched on all the things I was eager to discuss with this with this really fascinating and well-executed movie. Extremely well executed.
SPEAKER_00And I think I'll just say again, like somebody who writes about politics for a living, who is very focused on politics, who's who has a a a slightly cynical view of not slightly very simple view of politics, who's more focused on like the you know, the polls and who's gonna win and who's gonna lose, rather than the policy of which is partly because our the parties are so divided. But I to me this movie just rang really it just rang true. It it felt like you could make the movie today. That's what that's what I think is so interesting about it, is that the the the the issues that are raised in this movie about the the corruption of of the politics I don't feel like a lot has changed in in 54 years since it came out. No. And on that note, let's finish up there. Thank you, Jonathan. As always, um, it's great to be back, and we'll be uh hopefully hit this episode out next week. We talked about this before. We're gonna do the morning Scorsese film Mean Streets, or be our second Scorsese film. So if you haven't seen it, go watch it. Uh please, if you like the podcast, don't forget to uh subscribe, to recommend it to your friends, give us a thumbs up, buy us a cup of coffee, do whatever you have to do. Uh, but just to show support for it, we do appreciate it. And uh until next week, see you later. Bye-bye.