YEAH FOR "VICE"


A look at the new movie, "VICE" about Dick Chaney, relates to last week's blog regarding " The Best of 2018." In an odd way, that is.
    "Vice" is a prelude to "The Best of 2019":  It has a good chance of winning  for  Best Picture. And for sure, Christian Bale will garner a Best Actor Award. As proof, consider Gary OLdman's Oscar  for his role as Winston Churchill in "Darkest Hour."
     Be that as it may, the more challenging issue is this: what is the film's intention? Is it to change people's minds about Cheney, who as George W. Bush's Vice President, was a provocative and disliked elected official? In other words,  is the movie supposed to humanize Cheney, to make viewers feel sorry for him? Or is it to enhance  what we always thought about Cheney in the first place? 
      On another level, is this primarily a film about our political system that corrupts people ( and especially Republicans )?  "Vice versa,"  is it about Americans who corrupt the system?
     Is it possible that the movie's purpose covers a  little bit of each concern? Admittedly, making Cheney more likable and giving him excuses for his bad behavior are hard to pull off. The very title, "Vice," suggests the complete word, "Vice President,"  a perfectly objective, honorable term for his position. Conversely, "Vice" also connotes meaning on a subjective level:  The Seven Deadly Sins. Cheney is, therefore, connected appropriately to concepts of envy, greed and pride, for example. 
     Throughout the film, viewers are trying to decide how they should judge Cheney's character: by his often sterling job as VP or by his moral shortcomings. Such ambiguity continues until the film's end. Yet, the "Vice " part of his demeanor somehow seems stronger except when he defends his daughter's lesbianism.  Yeah for Cheney in that regard.
     Adam McKay's directing is also ambiguous. The prevailing shots are mostly close-ups and medium close-ups implying intimacy and intensity. Yet a coldness ( and disconnect ) pervade, not only in Cheney's character but in the other main characters like Donald Rumsfeld. There's nothing wrong with that because that's how we perceived them. But it calls attention to one of the few sympathetic and likable persons in the movie:  Cheney's wife, Lynne, played by Amy Adams. We don't have to ponder how we feel about her. We know from the outset.
     Of course, there's nothing wrong with pondering and being unsure about a movie's intent. Foreign films are known for this. On the other hand, American endeavors give viewers answers and hardly any questions. Thank you, "Vice" and Dick Cheney.

Comments

  1. Ruby BJanuary 8, 2019 at 7:24 AM

    Since Vice is fiction, I would say that how you experienced the movie is more important than what the filmmaker's intention was. How can we know that? You're right that foreign films, at least the ones we see, are less likely to give or imply answers and I sort prefer that. (I once wrote a novella that one friend said proved that all religions are bad, and another said it showed the opposite. Go figure.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE BEST OF 2018; WHERE SETTING IS THE REAL STAR

Now that it's the end of the year, media critics are submitting their favorite films and TV shows of 2018. Which then soon starts  an avalanche of international  awards, like The Golden Globes and Academy Awards. It's interesting to see if our own personal " bests" win any of those awards. They should. After all,  we select special works that people may neglect, not recognizing that they are extraordinary?  We  critics, in other words, have better aesthetic taste than the so- called  media "judges" who are considered primarily representatives of popular culture, not "art."  What's more, we critics don't, hopefully, single out winning media for political reasons ( ie. It's Joe Smith's turn to garner a  best actor award because he's getting old ).     While describing what media critics are and are not, I have often wondered what characteristics we do consider when picking the "Best." The obvious criteria  include
Read more

Today's Living Room War

If we had been committed TV viewers watching the Vietnam War, we would have known it as "The Living Room War," based on its qualities of intimacy and frequency. Today, news broadcasts, while not aways about a war, have those similar elements. Yet they exist for different reasons.      Back in the day, "intimacy" meant watching the same group of soldiers and their often- daily exploits. We came to know them. We came to care about them. They were the main "characters" leading the parade. Presently, such characters in a newscast are the hosts or broadcasters themselves, not the topics. These individuals are those who carry the dramatic weight, and we look forward each day to seeing and hearing them: people who have potent personalities, like Fareed Zakaria, Sean Hanity, Rachel Maddow and loads of others, who cover  broad  demographics based on race, gender, sexual preference and political ideology, among other aspects.        Regardless of these diver
Read more