Customer Reviews

The Candidate [VHS]

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"The Candidate" was released in the appropriate year of 1972, when Richard Nixon was reelected, using the media to present himself as a solid, trusted leader who was being challenged by liberal elitists operating in concert with the Eastern media establishment. When the full force of Watergate buried Nixon in scandal shortly thereafter, resulting in his resignation in 1974, the messages presented in "The Candidate" became all the clearer as Nixon's hollow facade lay fully exposed.

Jeremy Larner, a former speechwriter for presidential candidate Senator Eugene McCarthy in 1968, used his political savvy to craft a script based on the realism of campaigning in the television age, in which, to use Marshall McLuhan's apt phrase, "the medium is the message." Larner copped a Best Original Screenplay Oscar for his effort. Robert Redford plays Bill McKay, who runs a poverty law center and has no ambitions to seek political office. He is urged to do so as the Democrats in California seek an opponent for a solidly entrenched incumbent U.S. Senator played by Don Porter. Redford, whose father, played by Melvyn Douglas, is a former California governor, agrees to run after being told that he can address topics on his own terms. The idea is that he is expected to make a decent run but is not expected to win. Redford articulates ideas near and dear to him that are not embraced by the broad spectrum of California voters. When he runs poorly in the primary, however, he is informed that he needs to make changes or risk being humiliated in the general election by Porter, a prospect he does not relish.

Redford's ensuing frequent turnabouts on major issues make him anything but the refreshingly candid candidate he sought to become. As the polls close and there is possible light at the end of the long campaign tunnel, Redford becomes more of a blurry media creation and loses the old image of refreshingly solid commitment he had previously displayed.

Eventually Redford upsets Porter. By the time the long race ends he is immersed in a total blur. The film's closing line is a gem. After winning the race Redford, seated in his hotel room with his campaign staff, asks, "What do we do now?"

"The Candidate" was one of director Michael Ritchie's finest efforts. The pacing becomes gradually stepped up as the campaign moves into its important stretch run. By the end the viewer is immersed in the same kind of non-stop, frenzied blur as are the candidates and their staffs, providing a graphic display of political realism via the camera's all-seeing eye.

As the American public grows more dissatisfied with the corruption and ineptitude of their political candidates, movies like Michael Ritchie's "The Candidate" become all the more timely and relevant. A product of a cynical age and although a bit dated (the film was released in 1972, and Redford would follow with the cynical and conspiratorial anti-CIA film, "Three Days of the Condor" in 1973), "The Candidate" is a illustrative vehicle demonstrating how pollsters, admen, press agents, and what we would call now "spin doctors" packaged political candidates to an unsuspecting electorate before anyone had ever heard of blogs and the internet.

As the liberal attorney-now Democratic senatorial-candidate, Bill McKay, Redford plays a man whose integrity and ideals fall prey to the American political and media machine that compel him to win. Peter Boyle, as McKay's campaign manager, and Melvyn Douglas, as the candidate's father, contribute vital supporting roles that are are as absorbing as the film itself.

Ritchie's film, along with Elia Kazan's superb "A Face in the Crowd" (1958), no less than an indictment against the role the television media plays in political campaigns, should be required viewing in every undergraduate political science class.

Robert Redford was behind the entertaining political movie "The Candidate" (1972), which goes a long way towards explaining how the game works. This film is really not a liberal one, which is what makes it worthwhile even after 30 years. It is supposed to be based on Edmund "Jerry" Brown, former California Governor Pat Brown's son. Jerry Brown at the time was a youthful Secretary of State who would go one to two terms as Governor. He was a new kind of pol, attractive, a bit of swinger who dated rock star Linda Rohnstadt, and representative of the Golden State image of the 1970s. They called him "Governor Moonbeam".
Redford plays the son of the former Governor of California, played by Melvyn Douglas. The old man is old school all the way, having schmoozed his way up the slippery slope through implied corrupt deals with labor unions and other Democrat special interests. Redford is a young man who played football at Stanford and is now a social issues lawyer of the pro bono variety, helping Mexicans in Central California. Peter Boyle knew him at Stanford and is now a Democrat political consultant who recruits Redford to run for Senator against Crocker Jarman, an entrenched conservative Orange County Republican. Jarman could be Reagan, but he is as much a composite of the traditional Republican: Strong on defense, down on affirmative action and welfare, a real "up by the bootstraps" guy who emerged from the Depression and World War II to make up our "greatest generation."
The film does an about-face on perceptions that, in many cases, turn out to be true. Redford is the rich kid with connections. Jarman beat the Depression like the rest of the U.S., without a social worker.
"How did we do it?" he mocks.
Redford's film wife is played by Karen Carlson, pure eye candy (but what happened to her career I cannot say?). She has ambitions of her own, and pushes him to do it because he has the "power," an undefined sexual charisma of the JFK variety. Redford plays a caricature of himself, handsome but considered an empty suit. His deal is he can say any outrageous thing because he cannot win anyway, and in so doing shows he has the brains. When he creeps up in the polls, the idealism gives way to standard politicking, complete with deals with his old man's crooked labor buddies. He wins, demonstrating the power of looks and TV advertising. In the end he expresses that he is not prepared for the task.

STEVEN TRAVERS

AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM

I do not have to tell anyone that the look behind the scenes at the fictional California senate race in the 1972 film "The Candidate" remains realistic and relevant today. The sophistication employed by candidates and their supporters in putting together campaign ads has certainly become progressively slicker and sicker, but what we see in Michael Ritchie's drama is essentially what we still get today. The tagline for "The Candidate" was: "Nothing matters more than winning. Not even what you believe in," a sentiment that is certainly true today, Election Day 2004. Both of the candidates, George W. Bush and John F. Kerry, were nominated by their parties because of the perception that they could win the election. Bush had been re-elected governor of Texas, so he had the requisite weight to going up against Al Gore. Kerry had served in Vietnam, so he would be able to talk about national security. Neither man has ever been accused of being a visionary leader in the mold of John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan.

Since Robert Redford is in the title role he certainly has the requisite charisma to be that sort of candidate. He is Bill McKay, the son of a former governor, John J. McKay (Melvyn Douglas), and he has been working as a lawyer and trying to get away from daddy's shadow. McKay is talked into being essentially the sacrificial lamb against the incumbent, conservative Senator Crocker Jarmon (Don Porter), because it will be a way of publicizing the issues he cares about. Since he is going to lose big-time, the handsome and articulate McKay is given permission to go out and (horrors) say whatever he really wants. The problem is that his ideas are starting to resonate with the electorate and he is starting to gain in the polls, at which point he starts getting handles by Democratic operative Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle), who knows how to play hardball. Lucas brings in a "media specialist," Allen Garfield (Howard Klein), who knows how to package a candidate so that it is all about image over substance. After all, now that he can actually win, young McKay has to pay attention to what he actually says.

Like "Network," this film is something of a satire, but it keeps things pretty realistic and avoids plunging into black comedy. The closest "The Candidate" comes to the edge is in my favorite scenes, which is when Robert Redford's character is in the back of his limo getting a bit silly with his campaign spiel: "Can't any longer play off black against old, young against poor. This country cannot house its houseless, feed its foodless." Then he ends up making weird noises and doing a Nixon impersonation. There is, of course, an authenticity to this unguarded moment that goes way beyond the well-scripted public performances of the political candidate.

It has been three decades and "The Candidate" is still at the top of my list for cinematic representations of the seedy side of politics, assuming, for the sake of argument, that those terms are not redundant. You really do believe that McKay wants to do and say the right thing, and his compromises are reluctant. When he makes the necessary deal with a labor leader (Kevin Tobey) to get votes in return for favors, we know that McKay is aware that he has just sold his soul and that he is not at all convinced the exchanged is going to be worth the trade.

The film was scripted by Jeremy Larner, who I understand was a former speech writer for Eugene McCarthy, which explains why it has a sense of authenticity above and beyond what we usually get in such movies. Larner ends "The Candidate" with a true note of horror, as the winning candidate asks, almost helplessly, "What do we do now?" Sometime tonight, assuming for the sake of argument that we will actually know who has won the election by the time the clock strikes midnight, that is a question that many of us will be asking, even if we are not the one who has just been given a four year lease on the White House.

Robert Redford was behind the entertaining political movie "The Candidate" (1972), which goes a long way towards explaining how the game works. This film is really not a liberal one, which is what makes it worthwhile even after 30 years. It is supposed to be based on Edmund "Jerry" Brown, former California Governor Pat Brown's son. Jerry Brown at the time was a youthful Secretary of State who would go one to two terms as Governor. He was a new kind of pol, attractive, a bit of swinger who dated rock star Linda Rohnstadt, and representative of the Golden State image of the 1970s. They called him "Governor Moonbeam".
Redford plays the son of the former Governor of California, played by Melvyn Douglas. The old man is old school all the way, having schmoozed his way up the slippery slope through implied corrupt deals with labor unions and other Democrat special interests. Redford is a young man who played football at Stanford and is now a social issues lawyer of the pro bono variety, helping Mexicans in Central California. Peter Boyle knew him at Stanford and is now a Democrat political consultant who recruits Redford to run for Senator against Crocker Jarman, an entrenched conservative Orange County Republican. Jarman could be Reagan, but he is as much a composite of the traditional Republican: Strong on defense, down on affirmative action and welfare, a real "up by the bootstraps" guy who emerged from the Depression and World War II to make up our "greatest generation."
The film does an about-face on perceptions that, in many cases, turn out to be true. Redford is the rich kid with connections. Jarman beat the Depression like the rest of the U.S., without a social worker.
"How did we do it?" he mocks.
Redford's film wife is played by Karen Carlson, pure eye candy (but what happened to her career I cannot say?). She has ambitions of her own, and pushes him to do it because he has the "power," an undefined sexual charisma of the JFK variety. Redford plays a caricature of himself, handsome but considered an empty suit. His deal is he can say any outrageous thing because he cannot win anyway, and in so doing shows he has the brains. When he creeps up in the polls, the idealism gives way to standard politicking, complete with deals with his old man's crooked labor buddies. He wins, demonstrating the power of looks and TV advertising. In the end he expresses that he is not prepared for the task.

A great look into the inside world of the political campaign. Redford plays a idealist with big ambitions, but little know how. (sound familiar?). As he inches his way higher up the holy grail of elected office, he finds his own morality slipping away. (with one of the great last lines in any movie). Redford has mentioned he might be interested in a sequel, I hope so, the dirty world of politics has only sunk deeper in a swamp of media shallowness.

BTW - how about a new edition with commentary and proper aspect ratio.

I believe it was the Italian political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli who said, "The end justifies the means." Not only does this concept epitomize the American political process, but it also attributes to the corruption often associated with the workings of elected officials. One such instance of this corruption was depicted through the character of Bill McKay(Robert Redford): a sound, idealistic lawyer enticed by the opportunity for political power. McKay was introduced as the underdog in his race against incumbent Crocker Jarmon for the U.S. Senate seat for the state of California. In the beginning, McKay-with little interest in actually achieving victory-was determined to defend local issues, such as the problem with California's polluted beaches and the rate of unemployment plaguing inner-city areas. It becomes apparent, however, that McKay unap lacks a defined platform and is oblivious of certain controversial issues after stating in a press conference that he was in support of "bussing" without actually knowing what it was. Even with McKay's lack of interest and knowledge, the sly persuasion of eager campaign managers and Bill's wife causes McKay to believe that he will be more influential upon obtaining the seat in the Senate and begins to take his campaign "seriously." As McKay slowly gains a following, the issues he once stood for were pushed aside as his campaign managers attempt to reinvent his image in order to jump ahead in the polls. McKay's speeches become repetitive and reflect not his own personal beliefs, but only what appeals to the voters. McKay's fatigue and level of seriousness are shown in the scenes where McKay is overcome with laughter and unable to film a television spot and as McKay humorously rewords his one memorized speech, in a way, mocking the way he has sold out. Even though McKay feels his actions are a complete surrender to what he believes in, he feels that he must compromise and put all his faith into his campaign managers to do what is right in order to become elected. Is "selling out" really worth the win? I liked the fact that the film, no matter how old, speaks volumes about the current political process. Whether you are a fan of politics or not, this movie will leave you thinking as the credits role.

I saw this when it came out and was utterly riveted by it. It was the first political film I had ever seen and got me interested in politics, of which I became quite the junky. I believe this was one of the first films to attempt to create a realistic and subtle drama about the political process, at least in elections.

This time around, I got it for my kids. I admit that I watched it with some trepidation, hoping I would like it as much as I did the first time. Fortunately, it passed the test! We all became engrossed and discussed it afterwards, which was exactly what I hoped would happen.

One scary thing about the film, as my left-wing wife put it, is how little has changed - the US has scarcely moved on from the issues as presented in the film. First, abortion is a big deal, as is gun control. Second, there is the issue of government involvement in the economy, decried as socialist etc etc. Third, there is the environment, also hotly debated in much the same terms as today - developers v. tree huggers. Finally, the best portrayed issue is the campaign process itself, which transmogrifies the candidate's message with the necessity of TV's dumbing down. As we can see with the incendiary tactics used today, not even the internet has changed things much.

Warmly recommended. This film demonstrates the potential that film can have in sparking thought and debate. That it is so relevant is depressing.

Very much enjoy this movie. Robert Redford does a terrific job in the starring role. This is a movie that I would like to see an updated verision/remake done of the movie.

Watching this gives you an idea of the garbage that happens during a political campaign (and things are not any different today, as they were when this film was made).

During the season leading up to the 2008 Presidential Elections, this film raises some interesting questions about the role of the media in shaping who we believe politicians are. After this, and similar films, one has to wonder about the reality of the men being considered for the country's highest office.