Customer Reviews

The Contender [VHS]

5 star:		(43)
4 star:		(38)
3 star:		(21)
2 star:		(25)
1 star:		(46)

 

 

I must admit from the onset that I am not one to sit down and write reviews here. But after reading some of the reviews, I feel compelled to write one of "The Contender."

Others have done an excellent job of providing a plot summary, so I will spare you the repetition. I want to address some of the reviews that have bashed the movie for being "totally unrealistic" or "biased," especially those who explicitly state their "liberal" leanings.

First, "The Contender" makes no claims to be "objective," nor should the movie be judged by a "realisitic" litmus test. Yes, the movie is polemical. It makes no bones about its leanings. Personally, I don't think this should be grounds for dismissing the movie. I found the movie incredibly refreshing for 1) providing a critical, and cutting, progressive critique of the "culture wars" that dominate so much of our public, political discourse; 2) by not being limited by the demands of being "realistic," "The Contender" gives us a glimpse of the possibility of public discourse, grounded in the SPIRIT of the US Constitution and representative democracy. Too often political thrillers limit themselves to the intrigue of negotiating and manipulating the strings of bureaucratic power within the terms of that power. By contrast, "The Contender" asks "what if?" That is, what would it look like for someone to act on an ethical basis? What would it mean to stand on principle?

When I first watched "The Contender," I didn't really know the details of the movie, and was frankly looking for something that would be fun to watch. I love the genre of political thrillers, but I also don't expect much beyond the demands of the genre (Patterson and Grisham have really dominated how political thrillers are brought to the screen). Yet, "The Contender" went beyond the genre. Instead of the well-(market)tested version of the political thriller, it felt more like an inquiry into the principles of our Constitutional democracy that stands in stark contrast to how our democracy is currently practiced. It was refreshing to see a film of possibility that resisted a cynical representation of political life or that simply reconfirmed the easy message that "the government is corrupt."

In addition, the film is beautifully filmed. It's quiet when it should be quiet. The angles and the juxtapositions of scenes are masterful.

If you're looking for a "realistic" political thriller, then, admittedly, "The Contender" is not for you. You'll find yourself frustrated by the film's principles. But if you approach the film as a reflection upon the principles of a Constitutional democracy (from a decidedly progressive position), then you just might find yourself intrigued and thoughtful.

I say this as someone who is a committed lefty. I think that our democracy is limited and a representational democracy is not the end of democracy...that the realm of democratic participation needs to be extended. I have worked for years as an activist, organizer, and critic of the Right's domination of poltical life, unbridled capitalism, and the rise of Empire in the post-Cold War world. I am by no means someone who believes the system is working. All the more my surprise to find such possibility in this little film.

A lazy afternoon of fishing suddenly becomes a life and death struggle that will propel a governor to prominence and head a short list of vice presidential candidates to replace the one that just died. But the next surprise is the one who is actually given the nod, a senator from Ohio, Laine Hanson, played by Joan Allen.

This triggers a visceral reaction from Republican Senator Shelly Runyon of Illinois, played by Gary Oldman, who wants to see the passed over candidate, Governor Jack Hathaway, played by William Petersen, get the nod instead of her. As the chairman of the confirmation committee, there is only one thing for him to do--destroy her. Along the way, he enlists the help of a junior Democrat Congressman, Reginald Webster, played by Christian Slater who opposes her nomination for more idealistic reasons. The hearings provide the drama, and the camera takes us to the president, the hearings, the investigation by the FBI, and back to the hearings again. This keeps the story moving at a decent pace, and builds the suspense.

What makes this so good for me is that there are many scenes that I would be willing to see over again, but not all. After all, this is not "The Godfather." Should you see this, please go back to the beginning and note the governor's behavior and movement, and what the first woman in the story mouths to him.

The acting is superb. Senator Runyon reveals a sinister character who has fallen somewhere in the past from the idealistic and moral person his wife married. She sees, with dismay, the change that he does not realize. He plays his part with precise timing, speaking, halting, looking, waiting, baiting, only lacking the accent so identifiable of his home state. Joan Allen is a master at showing a face of barely contained emotion and distress. Jeff Bridges, as President Jackson Evans, is a disarming character who doesn't appear easily vexed in spite of the revelations that come out in the hearings. He takes them in stride, as well as his slight disappointment being unable to catch his White House chefs off-guard or lacking the ingredients for a meal he requests. His affability camouflages his caginess as he challenges once again the man he defeated in the presidential election, Shelly Runyon. A minor but thoroughly believable role was given to Kathryn Morris, playing Paige Willomina, a pony-tailed, cutsey, eye-glass-wearing, nerdy, almost ditzy FBI agent who is as sharp as a tack, and doesn't miss a word or nuance.

The viewer might be unhappy that the noble characters are progressive or that Runyon and his minions are not. You can despise the character of Runyon, without concern for his political persuasion. You can admire Hanson without embracing what she stands for politically. That is the strength of this film. Nevertheless, the movie represents something that is not so far from present-day Washington on both sides of the aisle--putting partisan politics above the good of the country and winning at all costs. Released in 2000, it might be a reflection of the White House and Congress of the last decade with some exaggeration, but ten years later, it might be a reality that no one thought would happen.

Four stars because it will appeal to the political drama afficionado, but as I watched the feminine form on the love seat next to me drift in and out of consciousness, I was reminded that it might not be for all audiences, and she will probably get even by turning on "The Bachelor." That's a terrifying thought.

This might be a story about democracy, but that doesn't mean it is practiced in this apartment.

I vote, "aye" for "The Contender."

I'm amazed at people who found this film shallow and vulgar. That my in-laws might not like the language used, well, I'm sorry, but that's life.

And as to "shallow," I agree that's an adequate description for the short-lived television series by the same writer, Commander in Chief. But I liked this script, found it a classic.

The film starts with a governor, apparent vice president candidate, a position the country had apparently been without for a few weeks. A car flies off a bridge and the governor who was fishing under the bridge tries to help the car's driver. Unfortunately, the driver dies. Then, onto the president's (Jeff Bridges) office. He can't offer the governor the vice presidency.

The president eventually chooses a woman senator, portrayed by Joan Allen.

The presiden't rival in the prior election was Sheldon Runyon, masterfully portrayed by Gary Oldman, who was also the exec. producer of the film. Runyon is rurthless in his pursuit of dirt on Senator Hanson (Allen).

I won't re-cover what other reviewers have doubtless said many times. But what I found moving about the script was that Hanson, while she knew it would be to her advantage, refused to indulge in the same tactics used by Runyon and his lieutenants.

There are, of course, feminists who will say that "That's the way it would be if there were a woman candidate." Notwithstanding Senator Clinton's record as being pretty strong-willed herself, my objection to such an assertion is that beyond doubt the worst boss I ever had was a woman. So I know what women are capable of. The point is that CANDIDATE wouldn't settle for those completely unethical tactics.

Would that happen in real life? I doubt it. The present day public relations/image production apparatus probably wouldn't even allow a "cripple" (FDR) to be elected president. And we all recall the Kerry campaign in '04. I guess Kerry's handlers felt that Kerry would be beyond responding to the Swift Boat thugs. So he came across looking like a con artist who used his clout to get military honors, or a candidate who didn't have the guts to confront those who smeared him. So, no, I don't think Senator Hanson would get confirmed by the Senate today. But one can dream.

Back to the actors, I thought Jeff Bridges as the president was a president I could believe in. There was a down-to-earth nature about him, despite his obvious intelligence, that I appreciated. And Christian Slater played Reggie Webster, a freshman Delaware congressman who was trying to get on Runyon's right side, then saw that Runyon's tactics were not his cup of tea.

Overall the story, while idealistic, was a good one. And I don't want to give too much away so that others will be interested in seeing the film.

Go for it. And dream that such a candidite is possible.

This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I had seen it before, LOVED IT, and had become frustrated at how difficult it is either to rent or buy in video stores. So, I decided to see if I could find it on Amazon, and have loved having it ever since. I watch it occasionally for my own enjoyment, but I think I like even more, lending it out for others to see! It just tells the story of integrity and the kind of self-respect for which none of needs to answer to anybody else like few stories can. I wish reality mimmicked fiction more often!

This film lives up to the reputation I encountered before first watching it - a wonderful return to the long absent genre of quality political thrillers. The story is well woven, if a little predictable, and the characters are exceptionally well played. Joan Allen, Geoff Bridges and Gary Oldman all pull off outstanding performances - if forced to choose I would have to say that Oldman clinched it for me. His character portrayal was nothing short of brilliant.

If there was a downside it had to be the inevitability of the outcome - but then this is Hollywood.

For 14 months in 1963-65, the United States had no Vice President. Some members of Congress, chief among them Sen. Birch Bayh, believed that this situation (which had occurred several times earlier in our history) was intolerable considering the necessity of a clear chain of command in the nuclear age. Their ideas were eventually codified as the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, providing (among other things) a procedure for filling a vacancy in the office of Vice President. The process was utilized only twice, both times in the first 10 years after its ratification.

The Contender tells the story of the fictional "next time" that the office of Veep needs to be filled. We never see the Vice President. Jeff Bridges plays the President, Sam Elliott (without mustache!!) plays the Chief of Staff, Joan Allen and William Petersen play competing suitors for the nomination, Gary Oldman plays a major leader of the opposition party, and Mariel Hemingway plays a witness before a Congressional committee.

I listed those names for a reason: These are skilled, seasoned performers. Acting, to all of them, is really a craft. It is a pleasure to watch them work. Some of them (Allen, Oldman) inhabit their characters so completely that they may be giving their best performances in any film; Hemingway is good for perhaps the first time. They have some great, highly theatrical scenes here: the Oval Office meetings, the official and unofficial working meals, the time-limited appointments in Members' offices, the high-level discussions in cars, helicopters, and private homes.

The problem with the film is that the director/writer is NOT a skilled and seasoned craftsperson. He draws the battle lines well and portrays powerful people (accurately) as unwilling to yield strategic points even to presumed allies. He writes a couple of great characters (notably, to me, Allen's character's combination of feminism, femininity, sensuality, carnality, brains, purpose, and guts; and Bridges's character, who has to be seen to be believed). But the other reviewers are correct that many, many of the lines at key intervals simply do not work. They are also correct that the viewer is clobbered on the cranium with the specifics of policy positions which advance the plot little. (In the context of this plot, for example, who cares about gun control?) Of course, the plot hinges on the details and he-said/she-said/another-she-said recollections of an alleged college orgy, not exactly standard fare for a Constitutional conspiracy movie. There are also glaring errors, as mentioned by other reviewers (to which I add these: the movie has characters refer to "advice and consent", even though these words are not used in the Constitution with respect to the filling of the office of Vice President; also, good luck trying to figure out what time of year the action is taking place). Furthermore, there is an utterly incomprehensible character played inexplicably badly by Christian Slater.

However, the movie does have THOSE PERFORMANCES and THOSE SCENES that bring the audience into the very midst of human struggles. It gives us characters facing situations, small and large, which they have never faced before, have probably never envisioned facing, and don't exactly know how to deal with. I don't always think the writer chooses credible ways for them to resolve their conflicts, but I sure as hell want to see films that illustrate the tension of such adverse circumstances where even your friends might be your enemies -- to the point that even a nominee's father's support for that nominee cannot be taken for granted.

Two final comments: I adored the performance of the Columbo-style FBI agent assigned to do a background check on a deceased woman. Another reviewer has criticized the film for not placing an older agent in the position; to me, the strategic gamesmanship of the characters makes it totally believable that they would assign the investigation to someone who is so young-looking that they wouldn't inspire suspicion. I presumed the actress, Kathryn Morris, must have been an established star doing a cameo (which it isn't); that's how good I thought she was in a role that was not necessarily as subtle on paper before she took it on. Finally, other reviewers have suggested other (better) films to rent; to their lists I must add a true five-star movie that is ACTUALLY about a congressional battle over a presidential nominee -- Advise and Consent, starring Henry Fonda (as the nominee). If you want political drama without the overt sex and street language, rent that one instead of this one. If you can stand it, see them both.

This film can be "good" or "bad" depending on how you choose to approach it. If you approach it from the standpoint of "I want to be entertained for an hour and a half, and I don't want to think much", this film will likely be enjoyable for you. This was how I approached it, and it *was* entertaining. However, afterwards, I started replaying certain aspects of the film as they relate to the ending, and you can't help but feel a little lied to by the writers and director in order to make the final twist work. Likewise, the main character, Hansen, is just way too unbelievable in terms of a politician. She's portrayed as a saint by the end, and you can't help but think how impossible her career would be for any politician so attached to their ideals.

Lastly, we're told that she is a Republican-turned-Democrat. She says she turned Democrat because the Republican Party moved too far from her ideals. Well, at about the 2/3 mark in the film, she rattles off her ideals and you can't help but wonder 'when in the US timeline could she have ever possibly been a Republican'. They tried to backfill a round hole with a square peg, and it won't work on anyone who remotely follows party politics.

The one saving grace for me was Jeff Bridges as President Jackson Evans. He nails the part and his character is entertaining for every moment he's on screen.

I can't really recommend this film, but if you do decide to see it, don't give it too much thought. It's more enjoyable that way.

Upon seeing 'Bourne Supremacy' recently, I was reminded of Joan Allen's other movies - she's fantastic in a relatively small role in the recently released 'The Notebook,' incredible as Pat Nixon (a role she was literally born to play) in Oliver Stone's 'Nixon.' Here, in 'The Contender' she's a Geraldine Ferraro-like putative VP nominee, sans the New York accent and 'John Zaccaro problem,' while Jeff Bridges is one of Hollywood's idealized versions of Bill Clinton (see also Michael Douglas in 'The American President,' Martin Sheen in 'The West Wings,' etc., etc.).

Now, four years after the movie's release, what lingers is Gary Oldman's portrayal of Rep. Sheldon Runyon and the controversy that followed. As with any movie Oldman is in, he is - far and away - the best actor in every scene in which he appears. Remember, Oldman was born, grew up and continues to live in London, yet he pulled off this stellar portrayal of an American archetype as if he were steeped lifelong in the U.S. legislative political swamp. To put this into perspective, imagine Brad Pitt playing Tony Blair.

Where it gets interesting is after the shooting had stopped. Oldman claims there were scenes cut in which you see Runyon's really not an overall bad guy - he's more than one-dimensional, has nuances in his character, etc. Well, forget nuance: In the movie as released by writer/director Rob Lurie, Runyon comes across as if he's on a monomaniacal jihad to get Bridges' President. This is about as nuanced as a sledgehammer, frankly, given the battles Clinton was going through at the time with impeachment procedings. The intriguing question is how much say Dreamworks proprietors David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg (big Clinton and Gore supporters) had in the released product. I'm not sure if anything got proven either way (i.e., what Lurie planned and filmed vs. what got released), but it gives the movie a heck of a background and certainly enhances the re-viewing experience.

I do like the editorial comment made on thes pages about the DVD release - "It's interesting to note none of Oldman's work ends up in the dozen deleted scenes shown on the DVD." Yeah, very curious indeed and a shame. It would be a treat to see the deleted scenes with Oldman and be the judge of how his character may have been distorted in one way or another through injudicious exclusion.

There is, however, one scene that I really want to take Lurie to task for (on simple technical merits) - the confrontational scene between Oldman and Bridges takes place over a dinner, and Lurie and crew has the place miked up like the old U.S. Embassy in Moscow. I almost couldn't hear the dialogue between all the sounds of violent mastication and slurping. You could almost put that scene on 'Animal Planet' it was so over the top. Four years out, I can't tell you what the two characters said (not even the nature of the exchange), but I do remember being repulsed by the sound mix.

Pretentious and preachy script ruined the excellent premise and the first 30 minutes of intriguing beginning. I am a BIG fan of films on politics (just ask my wife), but this movie simply failed to deliver any subtlty and inspiration. As entertainment, it succeeded by having first rate actors executing well (Gary Oldman was wonderful as usual). But as a film of art, this movie was pretentious and simple-minded, and characters have black & white-like stereotypes with absolutely no convincing development. What a waste as I had such high hope and high expectation :(

If you can understand the storyline-where Joan Allen is coming from with her principles, for one, this is a film whose time is long overdo.
When Gary Oldman plays a villian, he's usually a little over the top-like in Air Force One, but here he's subtly villianous, sometimes you have to wonder what he's gonna do with Joan's charecter next, or even if he's really expressing an opinion, and knows what he's talking about.
I like this film for several reasons-the acting, the story-the idea of political scandal being thrown in your face like this is very well done. The whole cast does a nice job, kudos to Jeff Bridges for playing a president who despite having a foul mouth, very much gets his lines out without missing a beat-honestly, I've never seen a presidential figure played like this before.
I also agree with Joan in the fact that she won't adress the accusations, one way or the other, very different than Bill Clinton-who did a much better job as president despite his infidelities, why couldn't they leave him alone with that?
I've always believed any celebrities personal life is just that, no one else's business, but between the tabloids and the paparazzi-which in my opinion abuse their freedom) someone's personal life is always made public and it shouldn't be like that, same goes for politics, in my opinion. This film is very adult in its content and properly rated R, so I wouldn't recommend it for kids.