Let me spell out why I was so put off throughout the first half of the movie. As expected, George Clooney's enveloped involvement with US politics, international issues and general nosey-business matters in local affairs meant that a lot of what was discussed in the film's inception was barely legible: to anyone outside of America. I would not suggest this film to someone who has no interest in learning about other countries, let alone their political system and individual campaign strategies because unfortunately, Clooney just does not do a good enough job of explaining the whole process. Throw in the fact that his establishment of the film's primary characters is hastily done as well as the setting for the film itself, and we have a very rocky start. I had a hard time trying to work out who was important in this film; couldn't understand why Clooney was not as prominent in the beginning (nor throughout the entire plot for that matter) and he had been so routinely pipped in the press; and generally found the style and cinematography to be just as confusing and inconsistent. Finally, the dialogue felt rushed and mumbled, not helped by the fact that you have Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the main explainer in this section, notorious for fumbling his voice unless it is raised 10 decibels above the norm.
Insert the twist, the moment in this film which had me at the throat, supported every argument made recently that this was one of the most suspenseful films of the year, and changed the direction of this film in the only right way. I never reveal spoilers but I will discuss how this film changed and what made me change my mind about why I am more comfortable in believing this film will be a contender in the Oscars race, rather than just an addition because of the Clooney brand.
Following the twist, our protagonist (Gosling) faces a series of moral and ethical dilemmas. He is forced to fight not only his enemies and his friends, but his inner conscience as well. The style of the film in terms of its editing became much more refined. Long takes matched much more succinctly with delicately lit closeups and mid shots. Movement shots were calculated according to the pace of the action, whereas before it had been a little unbalanced. As well as that, the color palate developed into a faithful blend of muted blues and soft oranges, emphasising the cold, bitter winter weather of Ohio which in turn reflected the plot. Acting wise, it will be very difficult to ascertain whether everyone handled the gentle progression of their characters' unravelling with the help of Clooney or by themselves. Judging by the fact that Clooney's involvement with the film both on and off the screen was just too stretched, I would be hard-pressed to say it was the latter. Finally, the audience arrived at a place where they finally had someone to attach themselves to. Having received little information about the film prior to the screening, I was very much under the impression that my initial involvement with the film would be heavily reliant on Clooney's character. This was not the case but again, this was only confirmed halfway through the film.
Outstanding performance awards definitely go to Giamatti, Gosling and Wood with the worst performance awards definitely going to Tomei for her incessantly frustrating supporting character (who was not on screen long enough to justify her dominance of her scenes) and Clooney, was his lack of effort in handling his transition in character from the charming, trustworthy presidential candidate he had been externally described as by his surrounding supporters, to the snake we discover him to be at the end of the film. The only reason we are aware of this transition is through the dialogue and action of other characters in the film. Like an optical illusion, Clooney's character changes with no morphing of his own.
Ides of March is not a good film because it was written, directed and starred by George Clooney. It is a good film because of the other actors he hired who gave it their all for the audience and their characters, and it was only for Clooney's sudden "realization" of the film's direction (which I can guarantee would have to have come from his co-writers and producers) that the film turned good at all. I liked the film but I didn't appreciate George Clooney's involvement with it. It'll be interesting to see what others think in a few months time in LA.
