Film Review: The Ides Of March

It seems somewhat felicitous that there be a film about the race to find America's next presidential candidate, although following the current Republican primaries one might certainly be able to mash all the footage into a political drama. Scratch that, satire. But what if Hollywood could elect the next Commander and Chief? No doubt the forerunner would be that genial, pulchritudinous man named George Clooney. If Mr. Obama were found to be slacking in his presidential duties, then perhaps the director, co-writter, star and appointed liberal ambassador for Hollywood might make a fitting replacement.

Stephen Myers (Gosling) is a campaign manager with ethical boundaries. A man who believes that the system will ultimately allow only those with the most sincerest convictions to become President of the United States. As such he carries out his work on behalf Governor Mike Morris (Clooney), a charismatic Democrat vying for the White House, with utmost conviction. But when revelations involving campaign volunteer Molly (Wood) surface, coupled with the increasing skullduggery of rival campaign manager Tom Duffy (Giamatti), Myers is soon embroiled in a political dilemma which will test his moral fibre.

The Ides Of March of course refers to that famed Shakespearean play where Julius Caesar's imperial ambitions were succinctly snuffed out by a gaggle of conspirators, and it is a familiar story here. First, this is a reasonably sophisticated, solicitous, well-crafted political thriller with a cast of heavy-hitters which impressively pull everything together. Yet while the political intrigue created throughout the film is certainly clever, like any political drama it features the predictable tropes we have come to expect of the genre. That is to say ambitious with allusions of intellectual grandeur, yet ironically broadly similar in its themes of political backstabbing and shady characters.

Speaking of characters, Gosling's Myers is a strange one - kind of like an enigmatic plankton inhabiting a world of political sharks. While portrayed as a sagacious spin-doctor who knows the tricks of the trade and how to work the media, he still remains curiously naive to the dirty realities he faces everyday. What's even more incredulous is how it takes a typical human flaw in Morris' character to set off an over-the-top chain reaction involving feelings of personal betrayal. Most flabbergasting of all the revelations to Myers however is that, shock horror, politics is not all unicorns and rainbows. Given all the perfidious political manoeuvres witnessed up until this point, you begin to wonder how this supposedly politically savvy wonder kid has made it this far and indeed, if he's even mentally stable.

In essence The Ides Of March is a Faustian tale in the same ilk as The Ghost Writer, Wag The Dog or In The Loop. While a popular concept these days given people's disillusion with politics, this is still very much a well executed film. It is a smart (enough), slick, efficacious effort with some fine acting which makes this more than worth watching. However, while the cast is excellent, the substance is as deceitful as an MP's expenses claim. Just don't be surprised that despite the glitz and soundbites, it doesn't make good on all its election promises.

Film Review: Moneyball

When successful sports teams go on to win major tournaments people talk about difficult to pin down attributes such as skill, spirit and luck. Yes, one way of judging athletes is how hard they can whack a ball or how quickly they can get from point A to point B, but what if you could break all this down to a set of averages and statistics?

Based on the true story of Billy Beane (Pitt), Moneyball charts his transformation of ailing, cash-strapped baseball team, the Oakland Athletics, into bonafide record breakers. Poaching gifted young analyst Peter Brand (Hill) from a rival team, the two embark on a project which not only rejuvenated the Oakland Athletics' fortunes, but revolutionised the entire sport of baseball.

While in many ways Moneyball bares all the classic hallmarks of a great sports movie (underdogs, the 'big game', a former superstar lacking in confidence and a coach's rousing pep talk), surprisingly it features very little in the way of baseball. Certainly this is not a film where the players are the heros, reduced to mere spreadsheets and powerpoint presentations. Likewise, on-field antics are only ever portrayed through a haphazard trickle of stock-footage of the Oakland Athletics' 2002 season. Rather, Moneyball is more concerned with the behind the scenes of running a sports team. It's not passion or spirit that are the order of the day here, but the law of averages.

It is Beane and Brand's gamble which is of preeminence here. Losing his best players and sporting a meagre budget one-third that of the New York Yankees', Billy Beane turns to bean counter Peter Brand, a gifted young Yale economics graduate with no sports background. Brand develops a formula which calculates the percentages of how often a player gets on base, therefore increasing the likelihood of runs, as opposed to the conventional method of judging how well players can hit or catch a ball. Armed with Brand's blueprint, the two rummage through the bargain bin of baseball searching for players nobody wants, but who between them complement each other with their combined averages.

And yet, for a film about cold, hard numbers Moneyball still manages to show a surprising amount of heart. Berated by the haggard soothsayers who assume to represent supreme authority over all things baseball and the rest of what conventional wisdom has to say, Beane and Brand remain inextricably woven to an idea. Their fortitude is unerring, their impassioned dedication to an otherwise clinical methodology providing a capacious emotional payoff. You just want their plan to succeed, the new to put the arrogance of the old in its place. Most of all you want Beane - who never made it as a player himself - to prove all the prophets of doom wrong and to finally realise his dream of leaving an indelible legacy on the sport.

While verging on being irritatingly obnoxious, a trait which seems to come with the territory of being a General Manager in baseball, Pitt's Beane also has a cheeky charm which is equally, annoyingly, likeable. However it is Hill's soft-spoken humbleness which almost steals the show. You'll recognise his idiosyncrasies instantly but Hill does so well at underplaying the role that he'll have to be careful less he becomes a serious actor. Alone these two are great, but together they're even better. Pitt's Beane a ball of boundless energy and social intelligence coupled with Hill's Brand who's an understated genius in his own right make the real winning formula in Moneyball. Perhaps a small slight however is how focussed it is on Beane and Brand's effort. Seymour Hoffman's excellent role as surly and obstinate coach Art Howe for example should have been more central in proceedings.

Further, while film's home stretch is well done, it is perhaps a tad too downplayed, serving to leave a bit of a muted ending which somewhat attenuates the film's first two acts. If you're incredibly pedantic you could also pick at some of the temporal anomalies which pop up. Given that the film is set in 2002, you may scratch your head upon seeing flatscreen TVs - a time before they'd been commercially released - as well as Beane's daughter singing 'The Show' by Lenka, a song released in 2008. Admittedly there is also an incredible amount of incomprehensible baseball jargon, but the great thing about Moneyball is that this never takes away from something which is consistently enjoyable to watch.

Generally there's not a lot to dislike about Moneyball. This is a film less about baseball, more a fascinating insight into two men's methodology of creating a winning sports team than of the actual team itself. It is an alluring tale of genius, insanity and blind luck, and still as much a rousing sports film as it is about sticking it to the man. One of the most pleasant surprises of 2011.