Customer Reviews

POV: Taking On the Kennedys

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

There's a remarkable moment in "Taking on the Kennedys" in which Kevin Vigilante, who's running in 1996 for Congress in Rhode Island against none other than Patrick Kennedy -- yes, one of THOSE Kennedys -- realizes how tough a skin you need in politics. Vigilante first has to beat an opponent in a Republican primary in order to face off against Kennedy, and he's just finished a televised debate with the woman. When he exits the TV station, he remarks in amazement to an aide, "She really HATES me."

It's as if he's finally grasped the fact that pure, unadulterated vitriol can be felt by another human being against you simply because you're running in an election. Perhaps that's the saddest -- and most deeply penetrating -- moment in this brisk little documentary. We have developed a political culture in which campaigns are nasty battles. Negative campaigning is not only expected, it's a test to see if you have the mettle to withstand the tough world of politics. As Vigilante discovers when he squares off in the general election against Kennedy, it isn't enough to run on the "issues." Personality, fund-raising and the ability to play nasty -- not to mention, in his case, the all-consuming question of name recognition -- are all part of the equation.

I was most impressed by how filmmaker Joshua Seftel gained a close and confident access to Vigilante during the campaign. His camera is there at the public events -- when both candidates are hustling for senior-citizen votes at a picnic -- but it's also there for some very private, relevatory moments as Vigilante gets fully immersed in the rough-and-tumble world of politics. If you think running for office is hard, try it when your opponent is waltzing around with one of the most famous political names in the world. It doesn't matter that Patrick Kennedy -- who is amiable but not exactly the brightest bulb in the glittering Kennedy clan -- is a mediocre candidate at best. He's got the name, and he's also got the money to run a blistering campaign. How Vigilante responds to that negativity is a fascinating examination of human nature. And yet one more reason to hit the mute button every time an attack ad is aired on TV.

This film shows how real issues and the more idealistic reasons that one would run for public office are soon left as wreckage on the side of the road to Washington. The Parties don't matter, right and wrong barely matters - winning is what matters.

If you are interested and/or saddened by the sad state of what is called politics today watching this documentary is worth your while. Thankfully all of this is presented with healthy doses of intentional and unintentional humor. All and all an engaging documentary.

This is a really interesting film. It gives you an inside look at the dark and gritty aspects of political campaigning in America. I think the best part about it was being able to see the inner workings of Vigilante's campaign team, up close and personal. The banter between Vigilante and Kennedy is great too. Even though the movie deals with an important and serious issue, it manages to be funny too. I'd highly recommend it!

This film takes a witty and insightful behind-the-scenes look at the inner-workings of a political race. The director obviously had great access, and has a way of finding human moments within the spectacle of the campaign.

I have contacted the provider - no return policy with Supermart ? Can you help ?

even make the now dead John John into an evil character in this self-serving bite out of the Kennedy's. Talk about flogging a dead horse. Why bother?

How about a nice movie about trying to win against Karl ROve?

From the blurbs on the jacket, I expected this movie to be "hillarious" and "surprising". This is neither. I get the feeling that the filmmaker made an effort to include as much filler as possible to make it last long enough to pass of as a rentable DVD in a videostore. It was all fluff, completely unsurprising, boring, and pointless. Yet another attempt to make money off of lingering interest in all things Kennedy, even tangentally. I guess that failed congressional campaigns aren't really that interesting.

On the non-partisan side: This documentary provides a realistic view of campaigning for an American public office. It shows that during the 1990s, candidates had a love-hate relationship with negative ads. It also reveals, even to this day, how one's war chest plays a dispositive factor in winning elections.

On the partisan side: This documentary has a boring, monotone narrator whose tedious nature is meant to suggest that he is/was neutral in this contest. However, this work was totally partisan, Republican propaganda. The candidate keeps suggesting that Patrick Kennedy is only in office because of his family. However, Patrick Kennedy served in an elected position for 6 years before running for the United States Congress; Vigilante has no former elected experience. He chides Kennedy for having used drugs, but he did the same himself. His brother led a protest which the press disliked which made him drop in the polls. He chides Kennedy for taking campaign money from Hollywood, but he easily accepts money from Corporate America. The documentary starts with the narrator implying that the former mayor of Providence and other Democrats unethically kiss up to senior citizens, but by the end of the piece, Vigilante is catering to this demographic. Near the beginning we see Tony Bennett singing at a Kennedy fundraiser, implying that the Kennedys are all glitz and product, but no one says anything about pre-gubernatorial Ahnuld helping both George Bushes to get elected. Vigilante derides one of his opponent's commercial for doing what George, Sr. did in his Willie Horton commercials. The narrator stated that most Rhode Island residents were watching a Patriots football game, rather than the publicized debates between the candidates. Are they calling their own electorate stupid? What does that say about Vigilante's campaign that the electorate could care less about either candidate? How are the Kennedys to be attacked when voters choose to pay attention to sports over politics?

Notice how this documentary has "Kennedy" in the title, rather than being called "Vigilante's Run" or something to that effect. Furthermore, why didn't Vigilante insist that his face be on the cover of the DVD, rather than Patrick Kennedy and his father? Hindsight is 20-20, but just like Hillary Clinton's election, it was about liking or disliking her, the opponent didn't matter. The same is true here, but replace "Clinton" for "Kennedy." In this work, Kennedys are condemned for supporting each other's campaigns, but they say nothing about the fact that Bush family members do that all the time for each other. This doctor claims to care for continental Africans and HIV-positive women, but it's his party that consistently turns a blind eye to those groups. This candidate never actually explains why he is a Republican in the first place.

In so many ways, this was just an instructional guide for Republicans who want to run in the Democrat-dominated Northeast. Good luck! Notice that this candidate didn't win, but since he was unqualified anyway, it doesn't really matter.