Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

Frost/Nixon (2008) -vs- W. (2008)

Disgraced Republican Presidents Edition

The Smackdown. As the nation holds its collective breath, waiting for Inauguration Day and the end of the long national nightmare that was the Bush administration, Richard Nixon arrives at the multiplex to remind us all of another horrible yet riveting chapter of American history. The timing couldn't be better. As we carve our Thanksgiving turkeys, we are truly thankful for term limits and investigative journalism and award season films. While we make a wish for the rapid and full restoration of criminally bent (if not irrevocably broken) International and Constitutional law, we ponder this little holiday season headscratcher: Nixon or W? The lesser (or greater) of two evildoers?

The Challenger. Ron Howard's “Frost/Nixon” (2008) beautifully captures Michael Sheehan's and Frank Langella's much-lauded portrayals of the title characters as played previously on Broadway and London's West End. The film started shooting only a week after the play closed; its screenplay is a worthy adaptation by its playwright Peter Morgan. Few plays make it to screen so fully intact, and the audience owes a huge debt of gratitude for whatever behind-the-scenes dealmaking resulted in such a rare gift. Langella has already earned a Tony and a Drama Desk award and an Outer Critics Circle award, and he seems a sure bet to add an Academy Award nomination to his collection. Sheehan more than holds his own as Frost; it's not for nothing that Frost's name appears first in the title. The subject of the film is Frost's groundbreaking series of televised interviews that ended with Tricky Dick's game-changingly cathartic admission of guilt regarding his role in the Watergate scandal. Even though we know exactly how this one ends, the dramatic tension sustains.

Milk (2008) -vs- Philadelphia (1993)

Brotherly Love

The Smackdown. As Proposition 8 protesters take to California streets, Gus Van Sant’s “Milk” reminds us that we’ve been here before. Thirty years ago, the religious right-backed Proposition 6 was defeated by the first wave of openly gay protest and organization. The timing could not be better.  Fifteen years ago, “Philadelphia” brought AIDs into the bright lights of mainstream consideration.  How much progress has been made in three decades?  While both films are relevant and important pieces of the ongoing struggle, which film at this critical juncture most urgently deserves a place on your "must-see" list?

The Challenger. Gus Van Sant makes excellent use of documentary footage to set the scene; we are immediately and effectively plunged back in the dark days of the sixties, when so many gays still lived closeted in shame, in real danger of discovery. Echoing familiar footage of anti-black violence in the deep south, we watch as cops round up men in gay bars, wielding billy clubs and barking unheard epithets we can only imagine. Out of this black and white horror rises an unlikely savior, Harvey Milk, our country’s first openly gay elected official. The film follows his journey from unassuming, closeted middle aged New Yorker to gay rights activist to martyr.  

Rescue Dawn (2007) -vs- Papillon (1973)

Show Me the Way to Go Home

The Smackdown. If you like seeing grown men reduced to eating insects, boy, do we have a deal for you. Here we put two teams of prisoners -- each made up of two men whose friendship with each other is as close as marriage -- in an environment even harsher than what Paris Hilton suffered through during her time in the slammer out here in LA. One man on each team has an unquenchable thirst for freedom and leads an escape against all the odds. Back in 1973, that was Steve McQueen in the freedom-lover role in "Papillon" and in 2007 it was Christian Bale in "Rescue Dawn." Their mates are Dustin Hoffman and Steve Zahn, respectively. Both films are portrayed as true stories, clearly embellished in the case of "Papillon" and a bit less so in "Rescue Dawn." The bitter imprisonment they each dramatize is so awful that dying while trying to get away is considered preferable to living with the way things are. Both films, by the way, really do trigger the question you may have in your own mind: would you also take this risk and lead the escape, or would you be the partner who is more afraid and has to be dragged along?

The Challenger. "Rescue Dawn" is the story of Navy airman Dieter Dengler (Christian "Batman" Bale) who in 1965, during the early part of the Vietnam war, had the misfortune to be shot down over Laos on his very first mission. A German immigrant who survived Allied bombing during World War II, Dengler now ends up surviving torture, starvation, solitary confinement, you name it, only to hatch a daring breakout plan which he has to sell to his fellow prisoners, Duane (Steve Zahn) and Gene from Eugene (Jeremy Davies). The film is directed by the crazy and eccentric Warner Herzog, known for giving us some crazy, eccentric heroes (Aguirre, Fitzcarraldo) in the past and Bale's Dengler is no exception. In fact, it's the way he endures the privation that's crushed the spirits of his cellmates that makes him seem so unusual because, if you think about it, being an optimist in Hell may make you crazy. In this film, freedom really is just another word for nothing left to lose because the guards at the camp are considering executing everybody so they can get home. This makes everybody in this awful place a prisoner. Don't think this film has a political agenda, though, because its narrow focus stays firmly on the incredible obstacles of just staying alive.

Primary Colors (1998) -vs- The Candidate (1972)

The Smackdown.  What does Barack Obama have in common with Robert Redford?  Besides being a liberal Democrat?  Maybe, by the end of the evening, Obama will have the chance to utter Redford's famous line to Peter Boyle in "The Candidate" to his own campaign manager, David Plouffe.

You remember.  "What do we do now?"

Redford's character was politically naive where Obama has already been toughened by a career in politics.  He probably knows damn well what's next.

In any case, now that the 2008 election is nearly history, it seems right to take a glance in the rear-view mirror of our campaign bus and check out two classic election films. "The Candidate" really established the genre 36 years ago, giving us Robert Redford at the height of his charismatic on-screen presence as a JFK-like California senatorial candidate who wants to run on issues but ends up running on great hair and piercing eyes.  It's a good study of the quest for charisma in our candidates that has lead us to the success of Obama. By the way, the New York Time's A.O. Scott has a wonderful retrospective look at this film posted today with lots of clips.  Check it out.

Then, just over a quarter of a century later, we got "Primary Colors" with John Travolta standing in for that horny guy who couldn't keep it zipped on the campaign trail or in the Oval Office and his wife who was the discipline behind the team. So those are the two nominees on our ballot. Let's see who's got the goods to win this cinematic election -- Redford/Obama or Travolta/Clinton.

The Challenger. The film comes from quite a pedigree: political writer Joe Klein wrote the book (originally as "Anonymous"), and the film was written by Elaine May and directed by Mike Nichols. Everything inside is paper-thin disguised as being about the 1992 Clinton campaign for the White House. John Travolta's Jack Stanton loves politics just like the real character he's based on and really cares about people, some of them so much he can't resist having sex with them. The reason to watch the film today, of course, is for insight into the Hillary character, Susan Stanton, as played by Emma Thompson (if you can get past how her repression of her British accent seems to give her Susan a sort of non-American blandness).

Travolta's impression of our former president is a little too slow and scratchy and never quite nails down this character as someone who could win the presidency despite some huge errors in personal judgment. There's a great moment when Susan Stanton up and slaps the hell out of her husband's face after his latest infidelity: it's surprising and it's what you would hope Hill actually did to Bill at some point. However, this is a film that doesn't actually pick sides: Clinton haters will see it as proof that Bill was barely a moral level above pond scum, and Clinton lovers will see it as proof of his humanity, however flawed and imperfect.  I would love to see what this team could do with the 2008 Hillary campaign, though, because I bet it provided just as much material as Bill's 1998 one did.

W. (2008) -vs- All The President’s Men (1976)

Presidential State of Mind

The Smackdown. Two wildly unpopular presidents and the mess they leave behind. Thirty-odd years apart but linked by a few common and terribly unfortunate threads. Hubris. Megalomania. Bad advice. Two films make drama of historical incident before the endings have quite played themselves out. It’s a tricky business, this current events filmmaking, walking the quivery line of fiction, hearsay, and reportage. We find ourselves drawn to the fiery spectacle, the political car wrecks at the side of our nation’s highway, hoping for some light and not just heat. The men who brought down President Nixon and his minions versus The Joe-No-More-Sixpacks who brought himself down and the nation and world along with him. Who wins? Not us. Not by a long shot.

The Challenger. Oliver Stone’s “W.” (2008) takes viewers through a picaresque and non-linear tour of Bush's eventful life, an investigation of a spoiled rich kid blessed with everything but moral and intellectual rigor -- his (selective) struggles and triumphs, how he found both his wife and his faith, and the critical days leading up to Bush's real life Dr. Strangelove moment – his fateful decision to invade Iraq.