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.

Swing Vote (2008) -vs- Paper Moon (1973)

"Swing Vote" REAL Election Edition

Editor's Note: After reading Bob Nowotny's review, watching this film just got by me and I didn't catch it until a plane flight yesterday back from London.  What with the election only a few hours away at that point, it had quite an impact.  Man, do I hope Barack Obama gets a clean win tonight so we don't have to go through the fictional nightmare depicted here or real-life 2000 version again.  I doubt this film is going to have a long-term impact and will not be widely watched once real-life moves on with an elected winner.  But I enjoyed Bob's review and the subsequent viewing because of how he doesn't make this about politcs but the relationships between father and daughter.  And, of course, "Paper Moon" is about the Great Depression, something else on our minds these days, yes?  So, here we go again...

The Smackdown.  Ever noticed how precocious preadolescent girls in films are always decidely smarter, more ambitious and more mature than their underachieving dads?  Movies love to tell us kids have the wisdom that adults lack.  Well, maybe a few kids should have told their parentals who are executives at Touchstone that it's risky opening a film that features a father-daughter relationship in the middle of the summer when superheroes, mummies and teen comedies generally rule the box office.  Still, it'll be interesting to see if "Swing Vote" can hold its own against such formidable box office competition -- time will tell.  A question we can answer right away, though, is whether this new Kevin Costner flick holds its own to what many consider to be a classic of this particular sub-genre -- "Paper Moon."  Can Costner get the votes he needs, or will Ryan and Tatum O'Neal con their way to a win? 

The Challenger. In "Swing Vote," Kevin Costner stars as Bud Johnson, a simple guy who pretty much coasts through life with virtually no ambition or sense of responsibility.  After all, what else would you expect from an egg processing plant worker who loses his job to "insourcing?"  Unemployed, unmotivated and uninformed, there are three things Bud does love  -- the King of Beer, the King of Nascar and his precocious, over-achieving twelve-year-old daughter, Molly. Costner teams with young Madeline Carroll in this Capraesque tale of the importance of everyman's vote.  Ms. Carroll is exceptional in her role, and the star-studded supporting cast all contribute to an engaging, timely, thought-provoking film.  Credit must go to writers Joshua Michael Stern (who also directed) and Jason Richman for a screenplay that is better than one might expect, although it requires a serious suspension of disbelief on several occasions. Propelled by the Marshall Tucker Band's driving beat of "Can't You See," the amusing, improbable chain of events which culminates in a presidential election coming down to one single vote in a little two-bit town on Route 66 succeeds in entertaining the electorate.

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.

Body of Lies (2008) -vs- Blood Diamond (2006)

Leo as a Man of Action

The Smackdown.  Given his humble beginnings as a kid doing TV sitcoms like "Growing Pains," it's extraordinary to be writing about two huge-budget films where Leonardo DiCaprio is an action hero, but that's where we are.  Nobody thought the economy would be in the shape it is, either, so life is full of surprises.  In any case, both the Middle-East flavored "Body of Lies" and the Sierra Leone-based drama "Blood Diamond" are different kinds of thrillers, uniquely suited to DiCaprio's screen presence.  They're both thoughtful, smart films where the main character is a conflicted guy who finds himself in the middle of a situation that requires all his skills just to stay alive, let alone to figure out how to be a good guy or if he even wants to.  DiCaprio against DiCaprio in a rumble where bullets fly and f-bombs drop.

The Challenger.  "Body of Lies" is the latest film from super-director Ridley Scott who lately seems to be fascinated by the Middle East and our role in it.  In this film, DiCaprio plays Roger Ferris, a CIA operative with a bullet (as in, rising star) who's trying to track down a bin Laden-type named al-Saleem.  He's out there in the field nearly getting killed on a daily basis while Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe) lives a suburban life back in America where he, literally, phones it in to Ferris out in the field. The theme of the film seems to be deception: how you can let the deception that is part of your job bleed into your life, and that, ultimately, nobody is innocent.  The screenplay was written by William Monahan ("The Departed") working from a book written by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.