The Ides of March

laetval wrote:I would be lying if I told you I knew what I wanted the audience to take away. We purposely left it ambiguous at the end, and I think that helps create discussion and that I like.

George interview:
The end was indeed ambiguous and left the audience hanging. Seems almost as if they were thinking of making a sequel to IOM.

?

Hi it's me, you have to see the movie to understand. Now this ambiguous thought may be just my take on it.

Patty, you son-in-law will be in my prayers for a good result on the MRI scan.

Thanks, cindi.

Honestly, it's me and anyone else, it is hard to discuss the movie and any ambiguities until all who are going to see movie do so. Discussions before hand will inevitably lead to Spoilers, and we wouldn't want that. So, ladies, see the movie and then let's have the discussions.

Easily solved! Why don't we just start a new thread for those who've seen the film?

You can also use the 'spoiler' button which is on your toolbar. Simply select the text you want to hide, then click the button marked 'others' and choose 'Spoiler' from the drop down menu.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Friday Box Office – REAL STEEL Enters Ring with $8.6 Million Debut

For the first time in a month, a brand new movie is set to top the weekend box office (the re-release of The Lion King doesn’t really count). Real Steel, the heartwarming tale of an ex-fighter, a robot and a dream, entered the ring on Friday with an estimated $8.6 million from 3,440 locations. That means that the Disney/Dreamworks release is on track to take in at least $25 million by Sunday – more than any new release has scored since August. Still, with a budget rumored to top $100 million, Real Steel would need to claim a bigger purse before it could call itself a bonafide box office champ. The weekend’s second new release was never destined to be a big money contender; but with a Friday opening of $3.5 million from 2,199 locations, George Clooney’s The Ides of March should at least finish in the modest $10 million range that many expected. Details and analysis tomorrow.

Title Friday Total
1 Real Steal $8,600,000 $8.6
2 Ides of March $3,500,000 $3.5
3 Dolphin Tale $2,400,000 $42.3
4 Moneyball $2,200,000 $43.9
5 50/50 $1,800,000 $13.6

Sounds pretty good for IOM, don't you think. Considering the budget was only $12 million the projections should have it almost making budget on first weekend. Hope it does well financially as well as cinematically.

Well, G's often said the opening weekend is not an indicator of success. Look at The American which was an opening weekend leader and then fizzled out.

I do not think that IOM will be a leader at the box office. It 'not a movie for everyone, is a film committed. I hope to be directed by Oscar!

Don't think George looks for box office leadership. Just good box office. Definitely not a movie for everyone, very few are. I personally don't like a great many of the movies out there, won't go to see Horror flicks, Physical (slapstick type)comedy, War or blood and guts stuff. Only movies out there that are for "everyone" (loosely used) at generally Disney creations (the animated kind), Pixar, and Dreamworks animation. IMHO, George will get a nomination as Best Director and Ryan will get nomination for Best Director.

This video is in thread posted by Katie called "George talking about how u can participate in Darfur campaign".
Thanks laetval but Katie beat you to the punch for a change.

laetval wrote:

great vid (but this home.... this painting?
is that the Richatd Kind one? )

Mmmm, cookies !

LouisLane wrote:So I, now, realized that I was in NYC yesterday. The same day of the premiere in NYC. I probably passed by and did not even notice, to be honest. I would choose to go and see A dangerous Method at Alice Tulley Hall. I don't regret it though. I saw the Fassdong closer than ever. Things have changed indeed...

ps: Melbert, sorry I blew our bet. Didn't go to LA and was in NYC, but didn't bother to look for it. So, it makes you the winner. What I owe?

pps: I just wish I had seen his parents.

Oh LL, you don't owe anything. I'm not that kind of winner!! Just the fact that you were in the same town and passed right by where he probably was is more than enough for me. However, hearing about your "kiss" and determining how he "dressed" for the event would have taken me over the top!! lol Glad you got to see what you saw and weren't late for it.

Ides of March is trending on twitter on Sat in Los Angeles. One gal tweeted that George showed up to a screening and did a Q&A but no idea where.

No it's me, don't think painting is Richard Kind one. George gave that to Richard, not the other way around. And it was one of those velvet paintings that used to be so popular in the 80's.

thanks Patty
but I was kidding

it seems to me some French Impressionism paint, but I'm probably wrong
surely not the daub George used for his
JOKE

ciao

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Weekend Box Office – REAL STEEL Goes Unchallenged with $27.3 Million; THE IDES OF MARCH a Distant Second

It may not be the overwhelming win that its pricey PR push promised, but America’s new number one movie Real Steel did score the highest debut of any truly ‘new’ release since Rise of the Planet of the Apes two months ago. With $27.3 million from its 3,440 locations, the family-friendly robot boxing movie also earned almost three times what its nearest competitor, George Clooney’s The Ides of March, saw on its first weekend.

Title Weekend Total
1 Real Steel $27,300,000 $27.3
2 The Ides of March $10,400,000 $10.4
3 Dolphin Tale $9,160,000 $49
4 50/50 $5,500,000 $17.3
5 Courageous $4,600,000 $15.8
6 The Lion King 3D $4,550,000 $85.9
7 Dream House $4,500,000 $14.5
8 Moneyball $3,230,000 $49.2
9 What’s Your Number? $3,050,000 $10.3
10 Abduction $2,900,000 $23.3

For a movie like The Ides of March, we need to use an entirely different way of assessing performance. The fourth feature from director George Clooney, the film was a big hit at festivals in Toronto and Venice. Even more importantly, Ides of March reportedly cost just over $12 million to complete, meaning it doesn’t have as far to go as Real Steel before it becomes profitable. With that in mind, the $10.4 million the film brought in from its 2,199 locations was pretty much expected. It was a little lower than the $12.6 million of Clooney’s Leatherheads but on target with the $10.3 million of 2007’s Michael Clayton.

Well, a little above the 10 mark! That's good!

laetval wrote:It was a little lower than the $12.6 million of Clooney’s Leatherheads but on target with the $10.3 million of 2007’s Michael Clayton.

Yes, but didn't Leatherheads bomb? And Michael Clayton was not the best rated overall? I don't think the first weekend results are that important. Remember The American was top rated on the first weekend and bombed after that. IMO

we must..... wait!

anyway not so bad hon
not so bad

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interview: Grant Heslov Discusses the Dark and Cynical ‘The Ides of March’

If there’s any true horror movie this Halloween, it’s eclectic filmmaker George Clooney‘s The Ides of March. The play adaptation follows a hopeful and naive young hotshot, Stephen Myers, as he loses all of his morals to get ahead, which is apparently what the world of politics requires. If someone in the film sticks to their respectable rules, things most likely won’t turn out too well for them.

Like a great paranoia thriller, everyone’s constantly on edge about their place on the political food chain.

However, The Ides of March isn’t so much a film about politics, but the downward spiral of a once idealistic campaign runner. Clooney’s fourth directorial feature is a dark and cynical character drama underneath the surface of a low-key thriller. Co-writer/producer Grant Heslov (director of the very underrated The Men Who Stare at Goats) and Clooney delved into the idea of trying to stick to one’s rules in a bloodthirsty world with Good Night and Good Luck, but while that story lent itself to a more optimistic feel, the duo took a far more cynical approach with The Ides of March.

Here’s what Heslov had to say about getting this dark character drama made, the film’s idealist-turned-ruthless protagonist, and why he doesn’t wake up dreaming about writing in our spoiler-filled conversation:


Considering how dark the film is, did that at all make it a tough sell when it came to getting it made?

No, it wasn’t tough for the domestic market. For the foreign [market], it was a little tougher to the point where George and I had our cast, went to the ASM, and sat down with foreign buyers, and pitched our take of the film. In that sense, it was a little difficult.

For foreign buyers, was the selling point that it wasn’t a film about politics, but more so about a guy losing his morals?

Yes, that really was what we were interested in — showing the arc and dilemma of a guy who starts off as a true believer, for all the right reasons, and then at the end still gets his guy elected, but sort of compromises everything and sells his soul, but still might have gotten the right guy elected.

Do you think the film says it’s dopey to be that true believer in politics?

I don’t mean true believer in the sense of a naive guy. Ryan’s character says at the beginning, “Look, I’ve worked on a lot of campaigns, more than most people at 40. This is the one.” Meaning, Morris is somebody he can get elected and stands for all the things that Ryan’s character believes in. I don’t necessarily think that means squeaky-clean, but at the same time, with the storm that happens between Stephen getting wedged out by his own team, the candidate fucking the girl and the girl dying, all that stuff forces his hand, in a way. He had a couple of choices, and he chose to do what he did.

I don’t know if I’d say it forces his hand, because he does things that he doesn’t really have to do. Like, taking advantage of Molly’s death.

Exactly, that’s what I mean. He makes a decision to not only save his own skin, but to also keep the campaign on track. He could have blown the whole thing up, right? He could have done a lot of different things, but you’re right, that he did sell his soul and make the most reprehensible choice.

[Laughs] I was worried he was going to blow the whole thing up at the end. If it was the big Hollywood ending, he would have talked about all the terrible things that happened in that interview.

Oh, God, that’s the worst.

So, you guys never got the note for an ending like that?

No, no. We didn’t really get many notes, because we didn’t do it through the studio. Sony’s releasing it, but they didn’t make it. We raised the money independently, and one of the great things about that is you don’t get a lot of notes.

Well, I’d imagine they’d trust you guys after Good Night and Good Luck.

Yeah, I guess. Hopefully we can keep that up.

[Laughs] You don’t sound very confident, with the “I guess.”

I mean, who the hell knows who to trust when money’s involved. The reason we make these films and make them for relatively little money is so we can make the film we want to make, and without having to put an ending on it to make you cringe.

I’d say this ending also adds a lot to the connection between Mike and Stephen. Mike has this line about how he “keeps pushing the line in the sand he initially wouldn’t cross,” and that’s what Stephen does throughout the whole movie. Did you, George, and Ryan talk a lot about that idea, how similar Stephen and Mike are?

Not really, but that’s an interesting observation. Now that you’ve pointed that out, I can see that. I don’t think we really talked about that. We certainly talked about it more on a macro-level, that that’s what happens in politics. Everyone goes in thinking they can change the world, and then you slowly get eroded by the system.

It also says how you can’t really survive if you try to be the good guy. You don’t see Paul — maybe the most moralistic character in the movie — do anything wrong, and yet he gets screwed over.

If you ask Philip Seymour Hoffman if he’s the most moralistic character in the movie… I suppose in our specific story, that’s true. I feel he would do anything to win as well. I think you’re right — in our story, he is the cleanest.

What made you guys want to have Mike be a more central part of the story, since he wasn’t prominent in the play?

We wanted to open it up, and we thought it made for more interesting stakes to have it be the candidate who has the indiscretion, as opposed to just Paul. The play was more about Stephen being pissed off at Paul, because they were sleeping with the same woman. That was okay, but here it’s different. This is more about the candidate possibly fucking up his opportunity to be elected, so the stakes are much higher.

Was it also important not to make Mike an antagonist?

We wanted to make him a candidate you would want to vote for, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican. Even if you don’t like what he stands for, it was important for you to see he’s a man of morals and had integrity. The more you believe that, the better the turn.

Is it tough creating a great, believable candidate? I’m sure you notice it as well, but all the time you see candidates in movies who come off more dream-like than believable.

Yeah, we tried to do that. I’ll let you answer that question. It’s better for you than for me to answer that.

I think he’s believable.

I think we did that. I think he seems like a believable candidate, and George is believable as a candidate. I think whatever baggage he brings with him helps in that case.

With both this and The American, you guys really turn Clooney’s charming image on its head. Is there a sense of fun in going against that known persona?

Yeah, I think it’s fun for him as an actor, for sure. I think it’s always interesting to see actors in movies you don’t necessarily see them in, if they’re good actors. If they suck, then it’s bad. If they’re good actors, then that’s good.

They’re tough, unspoken roles, too. There’s very little exposition about Mike.

No, no, that’s right. We’re not big on exposition.

[Laughs] Besides the obvious answer, why’s that?

I think it’s more interesting to throw people into a story and let them catch up instead of explaining and feeling like you have to slow down for them. I think audiences, for the most part, they don’t want to be ahead of you.

Do you think certain studios don’t give enough credit to the general audiences’ intelligence?

I do think that. I mean, just look at the films that are made. I think audiences see what they demand, but for us, we want to make films we would like to go see. That sort of dictates what we want to do.

Is it tough getting to make the films you want to see?

No, because I love to see all kinds of films. If we were trying to make this film for 50 million dollars, then we would have had a hard time. Relatively speaking, this was an inexpensive film. The people who put money into it have already made it back in foreign sales. In this way, nobody really gets hurt if the film isn’t a box office smash. If it is, then you get to make some interesting shit.

Did that inexpensive budget help the final product, you think? The film really has this low-key and intimate sense of scope.

Do I think the budget helped us?

Yeah, when it came to the final film. I’m sure there were days where you may have wanted more time or money, but –

Well, we really didn’t. Actually, we came in under budget and finished two days early. This wasn’t a terribly complicated film to make. This is the fourth film George has made. Obviously, he’s been in front of the camera so much, too; he’s really gotten it down. It’s just like Clint Eastwood – he has a real system for who he works with and knows who he gels with. The amount of money we made the film for was exactly the right amount of money. I mean, everyone works for less money than they usually work for – and I’m talking about the actors — and they all participate, so there’s an upside. That’s what makes the film so special, for the most part.

I’m guessing your financiers were happy about coming in under budget.

Yeah, they liked that.

In terms of writing, do you find the process of adaptation more challenging, or writing original material?

In some ways, adapting a play is easier because you have source material, you have the idea, some of the characters are already developed, but there are some tricks. You got to find ways for things that weren’t working or you want to work better. When you’re writing an original screenplay, you have to start from scratch and there’s more details to go through. I think writing an original screenplay is more difficult, but they’re both difficult. I find writing very difficult.

Is there any part of the process that comes easily or naturally?

[Pause] No, none of it comes easily.

[Laughs] So, what made you get into the writing business? What do you find the most gratifying, the final product?

Well, that is very gratifying. You sort of have to do it if you want to make the things you want to make. I don’t make my living writing, I make my living as a producer and as a director. When I write, I make decent money doing it, but I don’t wake up dreaming about writing.

[Laughs] Do you enjoy directing?

I love directing. To me, writing is the hardest. When George and I are working it’s fun, but it’s just not the easiest thing to do. Creatively, it’s great, because when you write your own movies, you get to create whatever you want.

Directing-wise, are you thinking about doing another feature soon?

I am working on a couple of things, but nothing is set to go immediately. I’m working on this film Argo right now, which takes me past through the holidays. After that time, it’ll be time to figure out what’s next.

Great. To wrap-up, I think Stephen’s last line to Ida, about how she’s his “best friend,” is pretty sad. He’s really all alone at that point, so was that the intention?

No, I think that’s just a big fuck you to her.

[Laughs] Really?

It’s a callback. Remember that scene they have in the overpass?

Yeah.

He’s like, “Ida, I thought we were friends, and you stick a fucking knife in my back?” She’s like, “You thought we were friends? Come on, I do favors for you and you do favors for me.” Later, when she comes back like, “Aren’t we friends anymore?”, he just gives that line, “Yeah, Ida, you’re my best friend…”, as a total fuck you. For me, that’s a total fuck you, but that’s the beauty of movies — six people can watch the same movie, but get the different idea. I do feel when he says… you’re right, by the end, he’s stripped himself of everything. He’s fucked everybody, and he won the prize, but at what cost?

The Ides of March is now in theaters.

Another interview : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interview: Grant Heslov On ‘The Ides of March’, George Clooney & Politics

We interview the screenwriter of ‘The Ides of March’ on what inspired he and George Clooney to make the film – and how he feels it connects to real-world politics and recent political events.

The new political drama The Ides of March (read our review) – co-written, directed by and starring George Clooney – opened in theaters this weekend. Adapted from Beau Willimon’s play Farragut North, the film stars Ryan Gosling as Stephen Myers, a talented and ambitious campaign press secretary for Governor Mike Morris (Clooney).

In the story, the Morris campaign is in the midst of a political dogfight in the Ohio primary – which will determine the Democratic nomination for the Presidency - when Stephen becomes enmeshed in a web of paranoia, deception and soul-staining “compromise.” Loyalties are tested and boundaries crossed when the opposing candidate’s campaign manager (Paul Giamatti) attempts to woo Stephen to his side – just as Stephen inadvertently uncovers a secret that could mean the end of Morris’ political ambitions.

We had the opportunity to speak with screenwriter Grant Heslov about The Ides of March, which (as the title indicates) was crafted as a study in betrayal. Heslov co-wrote and produced the film with Clooney under their Smokehouse Entertainment banner. The film was initially delayed in the hopes of finding a release date that would gel with immediate socio-political concerns. With that goal in mind, Ides makes its way to audiences just as Republican presidential hopefuls are gearing up for the upcoming primary battle.

[WARNING - IDES OF MARCH SPOILERS AHEAD!]

.

.

.

“We were very interested in exploring specifically how we elect our president,” Heslov shared with us from the set of his new film Argo.

“I had read the play. He (Clooney) and and I were working on something else, another idea, and he read it and we sort of felt like we could take what we were working on and marry it to this play. It seemed like a very good fit for us. We were working on a big morality tale and basically that’s what we turned this film into. I wouldn’t call the play a morality tale – maybe some would – but our desire was to turn it into that.”

The ethical dilemmas presented in The Ides of March often have as much to do with being accountable for one’s choices, as they do with the choices themselves – which is perhaps one reason that the film’s star, Ryan Gosling, feels that Ides could be set against multiple backdrops, citing corporate America and Hollywood as possible alternate settings for the film.

“I think Ryan’s right,” Heslov agreed. “I think you could tell this in the world of big business — of Enron for instance. The moral choices I think are still the same.”

The moral choices in this film, however, are colored with an element that is specific to those who work in the public sphere – the desire to effect change. Greed, avarice and cynicism are all in play, but beneath (or in tandem with) those impulses, the central characters in the film (Stephen and his candidate) have a genuine drive to impact the world and the lives of others, in what they believe will be a positive manner. That is not to say that these are doe-eyed idealists incapable of traversing murky and unpredictable political waters. It is simply that they are motivated by a shared belief that it is possible, just possible, that Morris will actually govern with the intent of easing the burdens of the average citizen.

“We wanted to create a candidate that regardless of what side of the fence you’re on, seemed like a good and honorable candidate. A man who stood by principals. And then we wanted to show that he was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. At that point, those moral questions really rear their head in terms of how Stephen is going to deal with it.”

The candidate himself is only discussed in the abstract in the source material. He does not exist as a flesh and blood character, as it is the chess moves of everyone around him that the play chooses to focus on. “We wanted that character to be in the film and have the plot be depended on the machinations of what happened with that candidate.” Heslov explained.

“Clearly it’s Ryan’s story and we didn’t want to detract from that. At the same time we wanted to have sort of a worthy – I don’t know if adversary is the right word – but we wanted to raise the stakes.”

The relationship between Morris and Stephen is indeed an engaging one. The young press secretary believes in him, almost as if he is a salesman who has finally found a product of value. He has a (somewhat) romanticized faith in Morris’ character and ability to do right by the electorate. What becomes fascinating are the circumstances that cause Stephen to question Morris’ integrity. No one is playing fair in the film, no one is walking the straight-and-narrow. It is a high stakes game they are playing, it is the “big leagues: it’s mean.” With something as valuable as the Presidency on the line, it would be unrealistic to depict an environment where the players are pulling punches.

The opposing team makes moves to manipulate the outcome of the primary in ways that stay just inside the lines of election fraud. In order to recoup those losses, Morris must offer Jeffrey Wright’s Senator Thompson the position of Secretary of State (should they win) in order to secure his endorsement and the votes of his delegates.

It is clear that Morris believes that Senator Thompson would be a poor, even dangerous, Secretary of State – and yet Stephen pushes his candidate to make the compromise, though Morris is initially resistant.

We shared with Heslov that these felt like the real “et tu, Bruté” moments in the film as an audience member and voter. It depicts a grim picture where votes are manipulated as if the populace truly is a herd of mindless sheep. Almost worse than that, Morris (the man we are meant to believe in) and his team are willing to have a Senator who will undoubtedly do harm in the world become the Secretary of State.

Yet it is Morris’ sexual indiscretion with an intern that Stephen eventually holds against him. The bulk of the focus is given to that plotline rather than what we find to be the most dangerous and duplicitous storylines — the manipulation of the votes, and the willingness on the part of Morris’ team to sell Cabinet positions. Given the attention that the film gives to the sexual interplay between the characters, it seems possible that some may conclude that the filmmakers feel that this aspect of the Judas Kiss, of betrayal, is the more interesting or consequential.

When we asked Heslov if he felt some viewers may interpret the film with that lens, he responded:

“I hope not. Do I think that there are people out there who will read it that way? Probably. I’m always shocked, and I’m never shocked when I see the way that people have interpreted something that we’ve written or that we did. I’m like, ‘Really? That’s what you got out of it, that’s what you saw?’ And it can be completely valid and still it just always somewhat surprises me. Look, the truth is that he ends up with Thompson for all the wrong reasons. But at the end of the day, I guess the larger question is: is he the right man for the job? Yes he has done what I think are some pretty despicable things. But I also think that he is the better candidate, and probably the better man for the job and so I hope it raises a bunch of interesting questions.”

When asked which specific actions he was referring to as despicable, Heslov responded:

“Well I think it’s despicable to sleep with an intern, and I think it’s despicable to then make a deal based on that and take somebody on as your Secretary of State who you absolutely think is the worst person for the job.”

The circumstances of the film will naturally cause audience members to think of recent, as well as not-so-recent, political scandals that have followed similar trajectories.

“You can’t help but think about Clinton, you can’t help but think about Edwards (even though we wrote this before the whole Edwards thing happened) and you can go down the line. I mean it’s congressmen, it’s senators… I mean it’s not supposed to be specifically about Clinton but with a line like, ‘you can do X, Y and Z but you can’t f**k the interns’ I think it’s going to be hard for people to get away from that.”

“You can’t get away with sleeping with the intern” Stephen tells Morris in their final confrontation. What you can get away with, according to the film (the aforementioned, “x, y and z”) includes starting a war. The filmmakers seem to be highlighting the discrepancy between the consequences that those who have taken questionable actions in their sexual lives have faced, and those who have made choices with more far-reaching political ramifications in that exchange between Morris and Stephen. When we asked Heslov to address the parallels he and Clooney were drawing, he replied:

“I mean look, I think it (infidelity) is despicable, but I also don’t think that that’s my business to be honest with you. And I think that starting a war is a much more important thing to talk about – particularly a war that in my opinion was based on lies. That’s a much more important issue and much more despicable than the other. I mean look, do I know that, or do I think that people are going to make that connection? Absolutely, I would be stupid if I didn’t.”

The film takes a simultaneously jaded and idealistic tone. Idealistic in the sense that it attempts to draw a flawed, but worthy, leader in the character of Morris. Jaded in the sense that it presents a picture of an electoral process so filled with rot that the chances of truly inspired leadership are next to impossible. Heslov’s own take on politics seems to be in line with the film.

“I feel hopeful. I feel perhaps a little cynical since we made the film. That’s probably why we made it. I think we go back and forth. I think it’s fluid. I know that there are dedicated and honest and honorable people working in government, but I think that the flaws inherent in the system make that difficult to shine through. Right now the country is more polarized that I can ever remember it being, and just trying to get normal stuff done – like just trying to get some judges through… and this is for both sides. This isn’t a partisan thing.”

Often films that are political in nature carry an intrinsic plea for change or action. For Heslov however, conversation is the ultimate goal.

“We’re not really call to action kind of guys. I think we’re more sort of like let’s just highlight the debate and let the audience argue it out.”

The dialogue that audience members engage in after seeing this film will likely reflect their current take on politics, the political party they are (or are not) affiliated with, and the past and present leaders that the film alludes to. It is unlikely that viewers will alter a previously established stance on a particular issue. It is possible to look at the film as one that throws many of the basic elements of human nature into sharp relief.

Perhaps the most interesting question the film raises is if it is not our unwillingness to openly face and acknowledge the baser sides of our humanity that creates an environment where deception and dishonor thrive.

The Ides of March is in theaters now.

Only problem I have with these interviews is that they give away entirely too much of the plot. Both interviews were filled with spoilers and I'm sorry for all of you who haven't seen the movie. The suspense was a very important part of the experience.

Here's a good article questioning whether George should give up making these kind of films:

From: LA Times

'Ides of March': Should Hollywood cut back on political dramas?

October 10, 2011 | 8:00am

The reception for "The Ides of March" this weekend was pretty much what you sensed it would be as the days ticked down to its release: Respectful but not effusive reviews, and ticket receipts that box-office reporters, ever the euphemists, described as coming in at "the lower end of expectations."

George Clooney's heart was certainly in the right place when he decided to turn Beau Willimon's play "Farragut North" into a film. "North" was well received on the stage, first in New York and then at the Geffen Playhouse. More to the point, its Howard Dean-inspired story at once served up a heavy dose of wish fulfillment, thanks to Clooney's idealistic lead character, as well as a level of blood-sporty realism that fit with our sense of, you know, how things really are.

And yet "Ides" seems bound for the same ephemeral status as so many other political allegories that have come and gone in recent years: "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 these days. Among the much-digested issues: Real-life drama can seem so outlandish that no scripted entertainment can match it, while winds shift too quickly for comments on the process to be relevant by the time a film comes out. 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, of course, 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 boring to boot.

And of course when scores of blogs and cable-news programs come at us all the time, we're wary of welcoming a new voice to the din, whether or not it has something interesting to say.

It's telling that about the only recent on-screen political entertainment that did matter was "The West Wing." Of course, as a TV series that was a very different beast, able to react quicker to what was happening in the real world, and also able to rise and fall with changing political developments over its many seasons on the air. Unlike moviedom, it wasn't forced to fire off one shot and call it a day.

Hollywood produces much that is ephemeral, so one more creation would hardly seem like its biggest problem.

But there's something slightly uncomfortable about watching another political drama come and go like a long-shot candidate in the Iowa straw poll. If nothing else, it sends a message of political indifference, even though, as movements from the tea party to Occupy Wall Street suggest, we live in a time of anything but.

And political dramas divert talent. Clooney made a meaningful and even influential movie about the changing role of the media with "Good Night, and Good Luck" in 2005. It was as well-intentioned and at times even as starchy as "Ides," but it stirred the conversation in a way that most Washington dramas don't.

Like politics, filmmaking is a game of resources. As a director and actor with clout and ambition, Clooney is a valued one, and it's fair to wonder if this is his best use.

Katiedot wrote:

LouisLane wrote: I saw the Fassdong closer than ever. Things have changed indeed...

Would this site be of any interest to you by any chance? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you thank you Katie. I will check it out. I was already enchanted by him way way before I saw the frontal nude scene he has on shame, . Boy, that scene is superb!

I'm PO'd. IOM isn't playing at either one of our theaters. I was supposed to have a lunch date with a friend and we were going to see it.

Sorry to hear that it isn't available for you to see yet. Sounds like it would have been a fun "date". I guess I always assumed that movies opened "all over" at the same time. We have 3 multiplex theaters on our "little" Island, and all are showing it. Crazy but true.
I'm sure it'll get there soon.

LINK

Maybe George will be there too

yes
I guess surely

Interesting - The woman who played Clooney's wife in Ides is the same who played his gf in Michael Clayton in the deleted scene.
I thought she looked familiar.

And, she's playing a dead wife on a new CBS drama, A Gifted Man, on Friday. She is wonderful!

she improved!
from hide and seek gf to wife

(who he also cheated on
well... at the end not a big improvement..... )

melbert wrote:And, she's playing a dead wife on a new CBS drama, A Gifted Man, on Friday. She is wonderful!

She's a good actress but her career seems to be going from 1. a jilted girlfriend in Michael Clayton, 2. a dying wife in The Descendents, a cheated-on wife in ides and now 3. a dead wife on Gifted Man. Oh my.

I hope her real life isn't as tragic!!

in The Descendents too?

is her the dying wife?

Yes but I didn't mention she plays the soon to be ex wife of Ashton Crutcher's character in the new Two and a Half Men sitcom. She's pretty cool.

Yes it's me in The Descendents she played his dying wife.

Sorry, I won't EVEN EVER watch 2 1/2 Men to see her in it.

My Cartoons for “The Ides of March” Film
October 13th, 2011[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


link :http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2011/10/13/my-cartoons-for-the-ides-of-march-film

cindigirl wrote:

melbert wrote:And, she's playing a dead wife on a new CBS drama, A Gifted Man, on Friday. She is wonderful!

She's a good actress but her career seems to be going from 1. a jilted girlfriend in Michael Clayton, 2. a dying wife in The Descendents, a cheated-on wife in ides and now 3. a dead wife on Gifted Man. Oh my.

Sorry, but the only movie credit Jennifer Ehle has with George is IOM. We know of her filming for MC because of an article about the deleted scene.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Patricia Hastie plays the wife in The Descendents

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

cindigirl wrote:Yes but I didn't mention she plays the soon to be ex wife of Ashton Crutcher's character in the new Two and a Half Men sitcom. She's pretty cool.

Yes it's me in The Descendents she played his dying wife.

Sorry, but I think its Judy Greer who plays the ex-wife in 2-1/2 men and the GF of Matt's wife in Descendents.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

the GF of Matt's wife in Descendents


ayo

Just saw the movie this morning... I was really impressed. I had high hopes and it did not disappoint. They also showed the preview for the descendants. I cannot wait. It is great to see George out there.

"The Ides of March" continues its "Michael Clayton" like minimal drops in fifth with another $1.5 million and $25.8 million so far. The George Clooney Oscar player has played well to adult audiences and could hit $30 million by Sunday.

LINK

I think... this is good. I don't know much about these things so is this great? If so, congratulations, George and all!

Hi Cindy, IOM is doing very well. It was made on a $12 million budget so it's making a profit. George is working so hard for this film, I'm happy it's doing well.

That's good to know. Thanks Cindi!

Thanks

good for him
and all people involved