Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

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.

Flash of Genius (2008) -vs- Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988)

Underdogs Bite Back

The Smackdown.  Life and art did that thing they do as I drove through an Oregon rainstorm to the cineplex, mindful that my disc brakes and windshield wiper directly figure into this Smackdown!  "Flash of Genius" tells the true story of Robert Kearns, the little guy taking on Big Auto.  It's a fight that cost him 12 years and exacted a fearful price.  Every driver every rainy day is safer because of Kearns.  Audiences may think they've been down this road before and why not: Twenty years ago, Director Francis Ford Coppola test drove very similar elements in "Tucker: The Man and His Dream."  Elements of that dream keep us safe behind the wheel today.  Underdogs biting back -- which movie tells that story best?

The Challenger. Robert Kearns (Greg Kinnear) was an engineering professor in Detroit who wondered one rainy day: why can't a windshield wiper work as well as an eye lid -- not continuously, but when needed? His tinkering led to the development of the intermittent windshield wiper used on 150 million vehicles the past 40 years. The pausing wiper was that better mousetrap and Ford -- after failing for years to create a similar device -- simply drove off with it. Kearns wanted to produce the intermittent wiper, and just as importantly, he wanted the public recognition for inventing it. "Flash of Genius" retells Kearns' efforts to seek justice. It became a crusade that tore his family apart, had him institutionalized for a time, and left Kearns representing  himself in court against the Ford Motor Company. His opponent had money, time and inertia on its side. The trial went to the jury after 12 years, and if you remember "Rocky" you can guess how Kearns -vs- Ford came out.

United 93 (2006) -vs- World Trade Center (2006)

The Day Everything Changed Except Courage

The Smackdown. Both of these 9/11 films were released in 2006 during the run-up to the five-year anniversary of the events of that terrible day. At the time critics kept wringing their hands about whether or not it was too early to tell these stories. Looking back, the better question could easily have been what took so long? Making films is how we increasingly begin to process events like these. It doesn't have to trivialize them or make them less important, although that can be the danger.

We'll use box office stats to name our opponents.  With that as the standard, "World Trade Center" becomes our champ with 163-million dollars worldwide.  "United 93" comes in as the challenger with only 76-million dollars.  But, especially when it comes to material like this, the box office is only a point of reference and nothing more.

Let's say that you have the heart to re-live 9/11 on film with just one of them on this seventh anniversary.  Which one should you watch?

The Challenger. The power of "United 93" is simply undeniable. We've all been on airplanes. It could happen to anyone. Today we all know the risks of terrorism. But the passengers on this flight never saw this coming and had mere minutes to decide to be heroes on that fateful morning when their flight left Newark for San Francisco with 33 passengers and seven crew members on board. Writer/director Paul Greengrass tells this like a documentary and it is simply riveting. The camera work here is dynamic -- handheld, jutting into the chaos. The actors are unknown here and, rather than being a drawback, it makes the entire tableau that much more compelling. For most of the film's 111 minutes, the intensity simply cannot be denied.

Hamlet 2 (2008) -vs- Mr. Holland's Opus (1995)

Back-to-Back School

The Smackdown. All over the country, kids savor the last gasp of summer and trudge back to school, looseleaf notebooks and lunch money clutched ever so tightly in their hands. Teachers meet and greet the bright and shiny new faces of their overcrowded classes and embark on a shared adventure that lasts till June. The good ones know that the influence of these encounters can last a lifetime.

No surprise then that impactful teachers inspire a huge genre of films. And with arts in education perpetually on the budgetary chopping block, the besieged arts teacher occupies a sacred little corner of the shelf. Two prime examples of the sub-genre climb into the Smackdown ring. In this corner, defending champion Glenn Holland, full-time music teacher and part-time composer. Stumbling clumsily into the ring, wearing roller skates and a caftan commando-style, it’s failed actor and drama teacher, Dana Marschz. Let’s check your work carefully, gentlemen. Everything counts in determining your final grade.

The Challenger.  In “Hamlet 2," aspiring, untalented, failed actor Dana Marschz (the brilliantly inimitable Steve Coogan) moves to Tucson, Arizona to teach Drama. Once there, his misguided attempts at original theater meet with even more abject failure and derision. Finally judged irrelevant and not worth saving, his drama program is canceled. Never one to accept defeat as much more than a speed bump, Mister M and his ragtag bunch of moppets and thugs put on one last show, swinging for the bleachers this time. Sound like you’ve seen this one before? Trust me. You haven’t.