Over at the LA Times’ 24 Frames column, Steven Zeitchik ruminates on the notion that political dramas, Hollywood style, just don’t seem to work for modern audiences. This, in response to the Ides of March, George Clooney’s tight, insightful thriller about politics and how it will corrupt anyone who dares to take it on. I guess Zeitchik sees it as somewhat of a stumble, not necessarily for Ides but for any movie about politics now.
And yet “Ides” seems bound for the same ephemeral status as so many other political allegories that have come and gone over the last two decades: “Man of the Year,” “Swing Vote,” “Bulworth,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Wag the Dog,” “Atlas Shrugged,” The Manchurian Candidate.” They’re movies that run the ideological gamut, yet most of them garnered middling reactions from both critics and the American public. And almost none of them have endured (with the possible, though only possible, exception of “Wag the Dog”).
There are plenty of challenges to dramatizing Washington in this day and age. Among these much-digested issues: Real-life drama can seem so outlandish that no scripted entertainment can match it. Or, just as thorny, winds shift too quickly for most comments on the process to be relevant by the time a film comes out, let alone after the fact. There may or may not have been something novel in “Ides'” message about the toll the system takes on idealism years ago, before Barack Obama’s presidency; there’s not much fresh nearly three years into his term.
Compounding the problem is that most Hollywood studios don’t want to take a stand that will alienate any part of the moviegoing audience. So a movie of any respectable budget — even one from an avowed Democrat like Clooney — will resort to making general, relatively toothless points about ‘the system,’ instead of specific points about one ideology or another. That’s a kiss of death in a time when partisan politics run so high, and a little unexciting to boot.
You are damned if you do, damned if you don’t, though, right? Make a film that does take a sharp moral stand and you will be called out for preachy. Even liberals will attack fellow liberals like Sean Penn, for instance. Remember Fair Game? It took a very harsh liberal stance and it was overlooked by audiences and by the awards voters. Just try making a film that is overtly conservative and republican-leaning (although, The Blind Side?) and see how far you get.
The other problem, of course, is the ongoing dumbing down of audiences here in America through television, bad education, and movies made to appeal broadly, but mainly to 13 year-old boys. You have to figure many would be put off by Ides because they figure they won’t be able to understand it. I took my own 13 year-old to see it and she was riveted by it. “That was hard core, dude,” is how she put it.
Good, evil, right, wrong – these are the themes that are playing out in Clooney’s well written and well acted drama. I found it be one of the few films that reflects part of the blame for our political corruption on the people themselves – the people, who require far too much from their political leaders. No one can have everything — be a good leader and a great politician and also be faithful to his wife of 20 or 30 years. We need our leaders to be gods. We don’t want them to be men.
Just try getting elected if you aren’t married? If you are doing what Clooney does – serial relationships rather than long marriages with the occasional infidelity. Yet all the press and his fans can ever talk about it is who is the latest girlfriend and how long before he tosses her out when she says she wants to get married to him? Yet, just try doing that and running for office. Americans want perfection and therein is our biggest flaw. The Ides of March makes this all too clear.
And so, we enter the multiplex looking not for reality, not for yet more depressing news about the state of our messed up political environment, but for a break FROM reality. Far more audiences will want to see Clooney crying after his wife in The Descendants than dodging moral issues in The Ides of March. Clooney as faithful married husband is exactly the kind of Clooney audiences will want.
We look to films to take us away, many of us. It’s not that surprising that we would shy away from a film that is forcing us to take a good long look in the mirror.
I think because the stakes aren’t very high. “If your boy wins, you get a job in the White House. He loses, you’re back at a consulting firm.”
Well fuck me sideways that can’t happen! In other movies if the person loses the world is overrun by zombies if they win they get a blowjob.
Also I can follow any weird movie but for the life of me I don’t understand political films. they have something new popping up every second. The Keebler elves are working with the Russians to develop the new math so other world Ronald Reagan can start a war for peak oil derivatives
I think because the stakes aren’t very high. “If your boy wins, you get a job in the White House. He loses, you’re back at a consulting firm.”
Well fuck me sideways that can’t happen! In other movies if the person loses the world is overrun by zombies if they win they get a blowjob.
Also I can follow any weird movie but for the life of me I don’t understand political films. they have something new popping up every second. The Keebler elves are working with the Russians to develop the new math so other world Ronald Reagan can start a war for peak oil derivatives
Formatting question: Is Sasha’s bit only the tip top of the article or does it pick up again with “You are damned if you do…”?
About the film, I don’t think it fails and I don’t think most political movies do fail. I also don’t think it has a message. If you go into it expecting a message and don’t get one, then maybe you would think it fails. But if you go and expect a movie and hope for a decent one, you should be satisfied.
I completely agree about the break from reality. That’s always been a component of the film going experience. But right now it seems that movies that aren’t kids movies or obviously uplifting are bombing at the box office. This could be a bad Oscar season for all the films. Of movies made for adults only the comedies have done really well this year. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm
Formatting question: Is Sasha’s bit only the tip top of the article or does it pick up again with “You are damned if you do…”?
About the film, I don’t think it fails and I don’t think most political movies do fail. I also don’t think it has a message. If you go into it expecting a message and don’t get one, then maybe you would think it fails. But if you go and expect a movie and hope for a decent one, you should be satisfied.
I completely agree about the break from reality. That’s always been a component of the film going experience. But right now it seems that movies that aren’t kids movies or obviously uplifting are bombing at the box office. This could be a bad Oscar season for all the films. Of movies made for adults only the comedies have done really well this year. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm
Loved Ides Of March, acting was great and I really liked seeing my home town on film, they filmed in Ann Arbor and Detroit, as well as other places. Even the wonderful Jazz club Cliff Bells was used as a backdrop for one of the scenes!
Loved Ides Of March, acting was great and I really liked seeing my home town on film, they filmed in Ann Arbor and Detroit, as well as other places. Even the wonderful Jazz club Cliff Bells was used as a backdrop for one of the scenes!
@ryan
my complaints about “ides” aren’t that its overly political or that its a message movie… it mostly with clooney’s direction (or lack thereof)… i wish david fincher would have been at the helm (especially with that cast)…. i guess you could say that about a lot of movies though.
@ryan
my complaints about “ides” aren’t that its overly political or that its a message movie… it mostly with clooney’s direction (or lack thereof)… i wish david fincher would have been at the helm (especially with that cast)…. i guess you could say that about a lot of movies though.
@ julian
i agree with you- and the best ones aren’t about a message. there just aren’t a ton of them. i was just proposing a theory that i’m not 100% about but that would be my best guess… here’s another half-baked theory….
i also think a lot of these more artistic directors have a hard time getting a budget and funding (sadly, a lot of them don’t make money) so i think they tend to avoid hot button issues and political films that are going to be viewed as usually leaning left (even if they aren’t, that’s gonna be the perception by American audiences since they are made by hollywood).
its odd, but its the exact opposite with horror films… and i have often wondered why more artistic directors who have trouble getting funding/budget don’t work within the guise of the horror genre. these films are easy to get funding for (comparatively) and have almost a built-in box-office audience. hitchcock made a living making extremely artistic movies in the thriller/horror (mostly thriller) for like 40 years.
@ julian
i agree with you- and the best ones aren’t about a message. there just aren’t a ton of them. i was just proposing a theory that i’m not 100% about but that would be my best guess… here’s another half-baked theory….
i also think a lot of these more artistic directors have a hard time getting a budget and funding (sadly, a lot of them don’t make money) so i think they tend to avoid hot button issues and political films that are going to be viewed as usually leaning left (even if they aren’t, that’s gonna be the perception by American audiences since they are made by hollywood).
its odd, but its the exact opposite with horror films… and i have often wondered why more artistic directors who have trouble getting funding/budget don’t work within the guise of the horror genre. these films are easy to get funding for (comparatively) and have almost a built-in box-office audience. hitchcock made a living making extremely artistic movies in the thriller/horror (mostly thriller) for like 40 years.
@ Samuel
you’re 100% correct about the christian film industry. i’m a film graduate from a christian school and the industry is plagued with the problems you mention above. It’s probably why some of the best christian films have been made by non-christians. They were simply making good films that happened to have a christian story/meaning/etc.
I want nothing to do with more political films… i’m all for more great films that happen to be political.
its not the story but how the story is told (film style) that largely makes a good film. you could read the most boring synopsis of of a movie… but if you ended with “directed by david aronofsky” or “directed by the coen brothers”, etc i’d say, “sign me up”
@ Samuel
you’re 100% correct about the christian film industry. i’m a film graduate from a christian school and the industry is plagued with the problems you mention above. It’s probably why some of the best christian films have been made by non-christians. They were simply making good films that happened to have a christian story/meaning/etc.
I want nothing to do with more political films… i’m all for more great films that happen to be political.
its not the story but how the story is told (film style) that largely makes a good film. you could read the most boring synopsis of of a movie… but if you ended with “directed by david aronofsky” or “directed by the coen brothers”, etc i’d say, “sign me up”
You are probably right, drake, but surely political films doesn’t have to be “message” films or trying to promote a cause rather than making a good film. It is up to a good director to avoid that trap and make it about the complexity of the story and the characters rather than a blatant stance in favor of or in opposition to a cause. It would be great to see a good director take on a larger, contemporary scenario that involves the political world in some form or another. And surely a good director should be concerned with delivering a quality story rather than force a message down people’s throat. That’s what artists are for. That’s what we expect of them. But again, maybe it is harder to deliver on that promise when working inside the realm of “political” movies. My point is “political” doesn’t have to mean “bi-ased” or “manipulative”, it should just mean “relevant”, really.
“…surely a good director should be concerned with delivering a quality story rather than force a message down people’s throat… But again, maybe it is harder to deliver on that promise when working inside the realm of “political” movies.”
I think it’s possible to enjoy The Ides of March as a tale about loyalty and betrayal, alliances and backstabbing. It plays almost like a mobster movie, and it’s certainly shot like one. Lots of scenes were lit like classic crime thrillers.
You are probably right, drake, but surely political films doesn’t have to be “message” films or trying to promote a cause rather than making a good film. It is up to a good director to avoid that trap and make it about the complexity of the story and the characters rather than a blatant stance in favor of or in opposition to a cause. It would be great to see a good director take on a larger, contemporary scenario that involves the political world in some form or another. And surely a good director should be concerned with delivering a quality story rather than force a message down people’s throat. That’s what artists are for. That’s what we expect of them. But again, maybe it is harder to deliver on that promise when working inside the realm of “political” movies. My point is “political” doesn’t have to mean “bi-ased” or “manipulative”, it should just mean “relevant”, really.
“…surely a good director should be concerned with delivering a quality story rather than force a message down people’s throat… But again, maybe it is harder to deliver on that promise when working inside the realm of “political” movies.”
I think it’s possible to enjoy The Ides of March as a tale about loyalty and betrayal, alliances and backstabbing. It plays almost like a mobster movie, and it’s certainly shot like one. Lots of scenes were lit like classic crime thrillers.
Drake has made the same point I was going to make. The issue is not the particular leaning of a film, it’s whether or not the filmmakers have made something to just be a good film or whether they’re trying to promote a cause.
It’s the same problem that affects the Christian film industry. I happen to be a Christian, but i find films like ‘Fireproof’ and whatever that new one is insufferable because they’re about message first, story second. Political films can and often do fall into the same trap.
Drake has made the same point I was going to make. The issue is not the particular leaning of a film, it’s whether or not the filmmakers have made something to just be a good film or whether they’re trying to promote a cause.
It’s the same problem that affects the Christian film industry. I happen to be a Christian, but i find films like ‘Fireproof’ and whatever that new one is insufferable because they’re about message first, story second. Political films can and often do fall into the same trap.
@ julian
i’m not sure…if i had to guess, i’d say the best directors/auteurs want to make films that are vehicles for great filmmaking, not films that are “about something” if that makes sense. Message films are almost always artistically vacant. To me, the best political films are just great films that happen to be about politics (think of how much pakula’s darkness and paranoia stylistic touches from “klute” adds to “all the president’s men” and “parallax view”) In my opinion, this type of transformative stylistic touch is absent from “ides of march” with clooney at the helm.
but i would love to see more auteur’s do political or horror films for that matter… they could elevate the genre
@ julian
i’m not sure…if i had to guess, i’d say the best directors/auteurs want to make films that are vehicles for great filmmaking, not films that are “about something” if that makes sense. Message films are almost always artistically vacant. To me, the best political films are just great films that happen to be about politics (think of how much pakula’s darkness and paranoia stylistic touches from “klute” adds to “all the president’s men” and “parallax view”) In my opinion, this type of transformative stylistic touch is absent from “ides of march” with clooney at the helm.
but i would love to see more auteur’s do political or horror films for that matter… they could elevate the genre
Two other points: I saw THE IDES OF MARCH with my 15-year-old, who has been considering a political career. He came out of it saying, “I don’t know if I want to get into politics if it’s so corrupt.” I spent much of the drive home explaining that it will be up to his generation to restore idealism to politics. It seemed to have worked. My son was out two days later campaigning for our local mayoral candidate (all right, we’re Democrats). “13 year olds” can digest a lot more than what they’re given credit for wanting, and can grow up expecting grown-up movies. The puerility of our movies is a symptom of the cynicism and timidity of the studios than of the audiences themselves.
Second, IDES can hardly be accused of plumping for liberal causes. The film seems to say that no matter what your politics–right or left–they will be undermined, perhaps fatally, if we don’t do something about a democracy ruled by “inside baseball,” as A.O. Scott called it in Sunday’s NYT, and steered by the same selfish careerism and win-at-any-cost mentality that has also given us our current ruined economic system. Clooney’s point may be summarized by the line in the film from Steven (Ryan Gosling) to the candidate Morris (Clooney): “You can declare war [etc., etc.], but you can’t screw the interns!” So Clooney hasn’t forgotten the GOP’s impeachment frenzy 13 years ago, but perhaps he shouldn’t. The continued trivialization of the Constitution by those who seem determined to end government–ANY government, it seems, should be called attention to and mocked at every opportunity.
Finally, we’ll see if Clint Eastwood gets by with J. EDGAR because he’s Clint Eastwood, a more iconic figure than even the film’s subject (and now even older than Hoover’s age at his death: 77), and because Clint has been such a moving target politically–neither exactly right nor left, and therefore fascinatingly confounding to both sides.
Two other points: I saw THE IDES OF MARCH with my 15-year-old, who has been considering a political career. He came out of it saying, “I don’t know if I want to get into politics if it’s so corrupt.” I spent much of the drive home explaining that it will be up to his generation to restore idealism to politics. It seemed to have worked. My son was out two days later campaigning for our local mayoral candidate (all right, we’re Democrats). “13 year olds” can digest a lot more than what they’re given credit for wanting, and can grow up expecting grown-up movies. The puerility of our movies is a symptom of the cynicism and timidity of the studios than of the audiences themselves.
Second, IDES can hardly be accused of plumping for liberal causes. The film seems to say that no matter what your politics–right or left–they will be undermined, perhaps fatally, if we don’t do something about a democracy ruled by “inside baseball,” as A.O. Scott called it in Sunday’s NYT, and steered by the same selfish careerism and win-at-any-cost mentality that has also given us our current ruined economic system. Clooney’s point may be summarized by the line in the film from Steven (Ryan Gosling) to the candidate Morris (Clooney): “You can declare war [etc., etc.], but you can’t screw the interns!” So Clooney hasn’t forgotten the GOP’s impeachment frenzy 13 years ago, but perhaps he shouldn’t. The continued trivialization of the Constitution by those who seem determined to end government–ANY government, it seems, should be called attention to and mocked at every opportunity.
Finally, we’ll see if Clint Eastwood gets by with J. EDGAR because he’s Clint Eastwood, a more iconic figure than even the film’s subject (and now even older than Hoover’s age at his death: 77), and because Clint has been such a moving target politically–neither exactly right nor left, and therefore fascinatingly confounding to both sides.
hollywood is right not to make films about them.
hollywood is right not to make films about them.
A republican film would be interesting. We had Nixon which was a great film. but a film about modern republicans, they would walk around and talk about how they hate gays, that poor people are lazy and stupid… that sick deserve to die and mexicans are worthless? They are too obviously evil villains
A republican film would be interesting. We had Nixon which was a great film. but a film about modern republicans, they would walk around and talk about how they hate gays, that poor people are lazy and stupid… that sick deserve to die and mexicans are worthless? They are too obviously evil villains
Political films have always been loss leaders. GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE was not exactly a hit in 1933. Nor were A FACE IN THE CROWD, THE BEST MAN, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962), and THE CANDIDATE, and those are considered classics. To be a commercial hit, a political film has to combine black comedy (DR. STRANGELOVE), be directed by a famous director as a follow-up to a very popular movie (MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON), be based on one of the most widely read best-sellers of its decade (ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN) or be so controversial that it generates two-dozen NEW YORK TIMES pieces railing against it (JFK). We’ll see if the FBI can drum up enough ticket-buyers with its campaign of desperation against J. EDGAR. (See http://www.eonline.com/news/the_awful_truth/why_fbi_after_clint_eastwood/268292?utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=imdb_topstories)
Political films have never been box office, like movies about the movie business. But this doesn’t mean Hollywood should stop making them. And I disagree that BULWORTH has not held up. Watch it now. It’s brilliant and hilarious.
Political films have always been loss leaders. GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE was not exactly a hit in 1933. Nor were A FACE IN THE CROWD, THE BEST MAN, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962), and THE CANDIDATE, and those are considered classics. To be a commercial hit, a political film has to combine black comedy (DR. STRANGELOVE), be directed by a famous director as a follow-up to a very popular movie (MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON), be based on one of the most widely read best-sellers of its decade (ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN) or be so controversial that it generates two-dozen NEW YORK TIMES pieces railing against it (JFK). We’ll see if the FBI can drum up enough ticket-buyers with its campaign of desperation against J. EDGAR. (See http://www.eonline.com/news/the_awful_truth/why_fbi_after_clint_eastwood/268292?utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=imdb_topstories)
Political films have never been box office, like movies about the movie business. But this doesn’t mean Hollywood should stop making them. And I disagree that BULWORTH has not held up. Watch it now. It’s brilliant and hilarious.
I think you are right, though, drake: that the A list directors seem to shy away from doing overtly political movies. An interesting, curious prospect: what are they afraid of?
I think you are right, though, drake: that the A list directors seem to shy away from doing overtly political movies. An interesting, curious prospect: what are they afraid of?
how did this site end up with all these right-wingers?
how did this site end up with all these right-wingers?
@sam … i’ll be there- i love PT Anderson. I was simply giving a reason why there hasn’t been more good political films recently.
@sam … i’ll be there- i love PT Anderson. I was simply giving a reason why there hasn’t been more good political films recently.
Perhaps political films don’t do well because they usually just reaffirm what we already know. Like Ides of March… Could have just been a 20 minute short film. The last great political story told on screen was West Wing.
Perhaps political films don’t do well because they usually just reaffirm what we already know. Like Ides of March… Could have just been a 20 minute short film. The last great political story told on screen was West Wing.
I loved The Ides of March. Even though I am firmly against Clooney’s personal politics, I don’t bring that difference to my movie going experience. The number one issue as to why most political films do not succeed (particularly those in Hollywood) is because the artists tend to preach and/or condescend towards their audience. It also doesn’t help that Hollywood (whic overwhelmingly on the Left) believes that their ideology is representative of the majority of citizens in the U.S. (it is not).
I loved The Ides of March. Even though I am firmly against Clooney’s personal politics, I don’t bring that difference to my movie going experience. The number one issue as to why most political films do not succeed (particularly those in Hollywood) is because the artists tend to preach and/or condescend towards their audience. It also doesn’t help that Hollywood (whic overwhelmingly on the Left) believes that their ideology is representative of the majority of citizens in the U.S. (it is not).
drake — P.T. Anderson DOES have a political film coming out next year — The Master — which I’m sure we’ll all be talking about this time next year. Ides of March is excellent — a really smart, provocative film.
drake — P.T. Anderson DOES have a political film coming out next year — The Master — which I’m sure we’ll all be talking about this time next year. Ides of March is excellent — a really smart, provocative film.
Most political films don’t succeed because they have an overwhelming Left-of-center bias, coupled with the fact that they portray their opponents as not only wrong, but evil. It is condescending and extremely bigoted. As a matter of fact, several Hollywood films have an underlying political message, where none really applies. I go to the theater to be entertained, not talked down to by fellow citizens who pretend for a living.
I loved The Ides of March. It was comparable to All the President’s Men. I don’t agree with either directors personal politics, but the films were entertaining and the acting was great. It films like Rendition, Lions for Lambs, Fair Game that are nauseating to watch.
Most political films don’t succeed because they have an overwhelming Left-of-center bias, coupled with the fact that they portray their opponents as not only wrong, but evil. It is condescending and extremely bigoted. As a matter of fact, several Hollywood films have an underlying political message, where none really applies.
This is one of those rare instances when I can agree with you, Sam. If by “succeed” you mean succeed financially. Not many movies can earn big money by alienating half the population of the USA.
But I do think it’s very possible for a movie to succeed magnificently as art if it has a left-of-center bias (e.g., Reds, JFK) and some of my favorite movies of all time are those that skewer right-wing attitudes with satire (e.g., Dr Strangelove, Bob Roberts) or sharp dramatic scalpel (American History X, The Conformist).
====
My big problem with Steven Zeitchik’s list of failed political films is that he’s gone out of his way to pick a lot of stinkers. Atlas Shrugged didn’t fail because of its politics. It failed because it was an incoherent narrative mess.
Comparing All the Presidents Men to junk like Swing Vote just because both involve presidential politics is like comparing The King’s Speech and King Ralph.
If Zeitchik is going all the way back to Wag the Dog, why can’t he name some excellent political films like Milk, Munich, The Contender, Good Night and Good Luck, and Frost/NIxon?
I don’t consider The Manchurian Candidate to be a political film as much as it is a thriller. But if Zeitchik is going to include it, then how about Three Kings, Enemy of the State, Syriana, or hey, The Ghost Writer.
Smart people don’t have a problem with political films as long as the films are smart. The Idea of March is brilliant. Smart people know that.
Most political films don’t succeed because they have an overwhelming Left-of-center bias, coupled with the fact that they portray their opponents as not only wrong, but evil. It is condescending and extremely bigoted. As a matter of fact, several Hollywood films have an underlying political message, where none really applies. I go to the theater to be entertained, not talked down to by fellow citizens who pretend for a living.
I loved The Ides of March. It was comparable to All the President’s Men. I don’t agree with either directors personal politics, but the films were entertaining and the acting was great. It films like Rendition, Lions for Lambs, Fair Game that are nauseating to watch.
Most political films don’t succeed because they have an overwhelming Left-of-center bias, coupled with the fact that they portray their opponents as not only wrong, but evil. It is condescending and extremely bigoted. As a matter of fact, several Hollywood films have an underlying political message, where none really applies.
This is one of those rare instances when I can agree with you, Sam. If by “succeed” you mean succeed financially. Not many movies can earn big money by alienating half the population of the USA.
But I do think it’s very possible for a movie to succeed magnificently as art if it has a left-of-center bias (e.g., Reds, JFK) and some of my favorite movies of all time are those that skewer right-wing attitudes with satire (e.g., Dr Strangelove, Bob Roberts) or sharp dramatic scalpel (American History X, The Conformist).
====
My big problem with Steven Zeitchik’s list of failed political films is that he’s gone out of his way to pick a lot of stinkers. Atlas Shrugged didn’t fail because of its politics. It failed because it was an incoherent narrative mess.
Comparing All the Presidents Men to junk like Swing Vote just because both involve presidential politics is like comparing The King’s Speech and King Ralph.
If Zeitchik is going all the way back to Wag the Dog, why can’t he name some excellent political films like Milk, Munich, The Contender, Good Night and Good Luck, and Frost/NIxon?
I don’t consider The Manchurian Candidate to be a political film as much as it is a thriller. But if Zeitchik is going to include it, then how about Three Kings, Enemy of the State, Syriana, or hey, The Ghost Writer.
Smart people don’t have a problem with political films as long as the films are smart. The Idea of March is brilliant. Smart people know that.
i think political films suffer because they share a similar fate with horror films… not many of our great directors want to make or are making political films (or horror films).
i’m sure if wes anderson, p.t. anderson, taratino, fincher, nolan, etc all had political films (or horror films for that matter) come out next year we would have 4 brilliant political films.
i think political films suffer because they share a similar fate with horror films… not many of our great directors want to make or are making political films (or horror films).
i’m sure if wes anderson, p.t. anderson, taratino, fincher, nolan, etc all had political films (or horror films for that matter) come out next year we would have 4 brilliant political films.