The Ides of March (2011)

There was a scene, about an hour of the way through The Ides of March, when I realized why this was a good, not a great, film. In this scene, a character gets into the backseat of an SUV. We know what's going on. It's nothing good, or at least nothing honest. But the scene drags on too long, and before you know it, the character gets out, the car drives off, and we get a facial reaction shot. The scene is effective, but anticlimactic because it could have been so much more. It could have been so much more, ironically, by being so much less. Why does George Clooney (who both directed and co-stars in the film) choose to end the scene this way? I wish I had the answer to that. Because Ides is, at heart, a political thriller, and thrillers are built on suspense. By showing us what we should already know, Clooney removes any remaining suspense.

Let's take a look at the two scenes that I feel epitomize what I'm talking about here. The first is the opening scene from Orson Welles's Touch of Evil. This is a 3+ minute long take that starts with a shadowy figure planting a bomb in the trunk of a car. Then the car drives off, and we don't get the payoff (in this case, an explosion, but it could be anything) until after we have been introduced to another major storyline and several other characters. That's not to say we have forgotten about the bomb. Rather, we have to wait, and the waiting is the best part. That the car does eventually explode is inevitable. But here's the thing: the longer you wait in suspense, the more thrilling the result is. In this case, you see the result right away. But the principle is the same. Welles gave us three and a half minutes; Clooney gives us thirty seconds.

The real crown jewel here though is from the master of suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock. There is a scene in Frenzy that gives me chills thinking about it: woman is lured into apartment by murderer, door closes, camera dollies backwards down stairs. And then around a corner. And then down more stairs. And then out of the building. And then across the street. The scene is almost excruciatingly long. We know, we know that she is being strangled to death. But Hitchcock never shows us! Never! And it's amazing! And here's why: suspense operates on the very simple premise that our minds, if properly manipulated, will always do a better job of freaking itself out than it will if you show everything. Tons of film theory backs this up, but that's perhaps a talk for another day. That's not to say that I disliked the film. I actually really liked it. I'm just being critical to prove a point.

The truth is, George Clooney has developed a real talent for picking movies that make the viewer think, generally pretty hard, generally about politics - to the point that I almost consider him an auteur of sorts. You know, one that just makes political films. As a political science major, I appreciate this. With the election coming up next year, a film about the evils of electoral politics seems rather apropos. Any qualms I have concerning the content of the film is reflective not of its efficacy, but my predisposition against electoral politics. But I see Ides as a continuation, not an individual piece of art. It is a continuation of a body of work that includes Good Night, and Good Luck and Syriana. Are either of those films perfect? No, of course not. But together, the three films bring us a little closer to realizing Clooney's vision.

And what a vision it is. Government (Ides), international relations (Syriana), and the media (Good Night, and Good Luck) all certainly have their very, very ugly sides. Clooney shows us all of this without batting an eye. Not bad for a guy whose big break was on ER.

As a side note, this is nothing new for Clooney. If you get a chance - check out The Thin Red Line. If you're willing to take the three hours to dedicate to it, you won't be disappointed.