Search - The Contender on DVD

Not of "what is," but a representation of the possibility of

Kevin Mahoney | Perkasie, PA USA | 12/20/2005

(5 out of 5 stars)

"I must admit from the onset that I am not one to sit down and write reviews here. But after reading some of the reviews, I feel compelled to write one of "The Contender."

Others have done an excellent job of providing a plot summary, so I will spare you the repetition. I want to address some of the reviews that have bashed the movie for being "totally unrealistic" or "biased," especially those who explicitly state their "liberal" leanings.

First, "The Contender" makes no claims to be "objective," nor should the movie be judged by a "realisitic" litmus test. Yes, the movie is polemical. It makes no bones about its leanings. Personally, I don't think this should be grounds for dismissing the movie. I found the movie incredibly refreshing for 1) providing a critical, and cutting, progressive critique of the "culture wars" that dominate so much of our public, political discourse; 2) by not being limited by the demands of being "realistic," "The Contender" gives us a glimpse of the possibility of public discourse, grounded in the SPIRIT of the US Constitution and representative democracy. Too often political thrillers limit themselves to the intrigue of negotiating and manipulating the strings of bureaucratic power within the terms of that power. By contrast, "The Contender" asks "what if?" That is, what would it look like for someone to act on an ethical basis? What would it mean to stand on principle?

When I first watched "The Contender," I didn't really know the details of the movie, and was frankly looking for something that would be fun to watch. I love the genre of political thrillers, but I also don't expect much beyond the demands of the genre (Patterson and Grisham have really dominated how political thrillers are brought to the screen). Yet, "The Contender" went beyond the genre. Instead of the well-(market)tested version of the political thriller, it felt more like an inquiry into the principles of our Constitutional democracy that stands in stark contrast to how our democracy is currently practiced. It was refreshing to see a film of possibility that resisted a cynical representation of political life or that simply reconfirmed the easy message that "the government is corrupt."

In addition, the film is beautifully filmed. It's quiet when it should be quiet. The angles and the juxtapositions of scenes are masterful.

If you're looking for a "realistic" political thriller, then, admittedly, "The Contender" is not for you. You'll find yourself frustrated by the film's principles. But if you approach the film as a reflection upon the principles of a Constitutional democracy (from a decidedly progressive position), then you just might find yourself intrigued and thoughtful.

I say this as someone who is a committed lefty. I think that our democracy is limited and a representational democracy is not the end of democracy...that the realm of democratic participation needs to be extended. I have worked for years as an activist, organizer, and critic of the Right's domination of poltical life, unbridled capitalism, and the rise of Empire in the post-Cold War world. I am by no means someone who believes the system is working. All the more my surprise to find such possibility in this little film."

The "Ayes" Have it

!Edwin C. Pauzer | New York City | 03/12/2010

(4 out of 5 stars)

"A lazy afternoon of fishing suddenly becomes a life and death struggle that will propel a governor to prominence and head a short list of vice presidential candidates to replace the one that just died. But the next surprise is the one who is actually given the nod, a senator from Ohio, Laine Hanson, played by Joan Allen.

This triggers a visceral reaction from Republican Senator Shelly Runyon of Illinois, played by Gary Oldman, who wants to see the passed over candidate, Governor Jack Hathaway, played by William Petersen, get the nod instead of her. As the chairman of the confirmation committee, there is only one thing for him to do--destroy her. Along the way, he enlists the help of a junior Democrat Congressman, Reginald Webster, played by Christian Slater who opposes her nomination for more idealistic reasons. The hearings provide the drama, and the camera takes us to the president, the hearings, the investigation by the FBI, and back to the hearings again. This keeps the story moving at a decent pace, and builds the suspense.

What makes this so good for me is that there are many scenes that I would be willing to see over again, but not all. After all, this is not "The Godfather." Should you see this, please go back to the beginning and note the governor's behavior and movement, and what the first woman in the story mouths to him.

The acting is superb. Senator Runyon reveals a sinister character who has fallen somewhere in the past from the idealistic and moral person his wife married. She sees, with dismay, the change that he does not realize. He plays his part with precise timing, speaking, halting, looking, waiting, baiting, only lacking the accent so identifiable of his home state. Joan Allen is a master at showing a face of barely contained emotion and distress. Jeff Bridges, as President Jackson Evans, is a disarming character who doesn't appear easily vexed in spite of the revelations that come out in the hearings. He takes them in stride, as well as his slight disappointment being unable to catch his White House chefs off-guard or lacking the ingredients for a meal he requests. His affability camouflages his caginess as he challenges once again the man he defeated in the presidential election, Shelly Runyon. A minor but thoroughly believable role was given to Kathryn Morris, playing Paige Willomina, a pony-tailed, cutsey, eye-glass-wearing, nerdy, almost ditzy FBI agent who is as sharp as a tack, and doesn't miss a word or nuance.

The viewer might be unhappy that the noble characters are progressive or that Runyon and his minions are not. You can despise the character of Runyon, without concern for his political persuasion. You can admire Hanson without embracing what she stands for politically. That is the strength of this film. Nevertheless, the movie represents something that is not so far from present-day Washington on both sides of the aisle--putting partisan politics above the good of the country and winning at all costs. Released in 2000, it might be a reflection of the White House and Congress of the last decade with some exaggeration, but ten years later, it might be a reality that no one thought would happen.

Four stars because it will appeal to the political drama afficionado, but as I watched the feminine form on the love seat next to me drift in and out of consciousness, I was reminded that it might not be for all audiences, and she will probably get even by turning on "The Bachelor." That's a terrifying thought.

This might be a story about democracy, but that doesn't mean it is practiced in this apartment.

I vote, "aye" for "The Contender."


"