Political movies

Costa-Gavras just put out this new film, "Amen," which tackles the Catholic Church and the Holocaust, while Alan Parker did "The Life of David Gale," focusing on a political activist fighting the death penalty who ends up being framed and sentenced to death himself through a series of messy events.

Do you think movies like these actually land, and what's one political film that really stuck with you?

The Life of David Gale - Amen | reviews - Costa-Gavras interview

I have always held a profound appreciation for political cinema. They are certainly a rare breed, yet when they hit the mark, they possess such a vibrant, pulsing energy!
Costa-Gavras's "Z".

Ethan Howard45 said:Costa-Gavras's "Z".

Man, I really want to see this! But of course, in this absolute dump of a place we live in, there's no way to actually get my hands on it. I guess I'll just have to sit around and wait for PBS to finally air it.

I've heard this movie is excellent...

Honestly, the only recent political film that comes to mind right now is The Contender (starring Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges, Christian Slater, and Gary Oldman), and it’s excellent!

If we’re grouping these under political films—though I'm not entirely sure what else they'd fit into—I have to say two of Scorsese's presidential movies are also top-tier for me: JFK (I actually just mailed a copy to a friend out in rural Montana so he could check it out) and Nixon. Now, okay, Nixon definitely runs a bit long, but watching the incredible chemistry between Hopkins and Allen is always a treat. 🙂

I’d also have to bring up Pakula's "All The President's Men," Scorsese's "Salvador," and Frankenheimer's "The Manchurian Candidate." Plus, there's "Reds," along with Gavras's films we already talked about, like "Z," "amen," his "State of Siege," and "The Confession"... oh, and don't forget Wajda's films, specifically "Man of Marble," "Man of Iron," and "Danton"...

Clair de femme 👍
(Or does it just feel like he's somehow the only one out there who claims to have zero connection to politics... even though he clearly does? 😁 )

ps. Sorry for the off-topic tangent! 😉

"Three Days of the Condor." Perhaps it doesn't fit the mold of a traditional political drama; it feels more like a high-stakes thriller... could it possibly be superior to anything Pollock has directed? (I wonder if he even worked on this one?)

Has anyone here had the chance to watch "The Quiet American" starring Michael Caine?

Ethan Howard45 said:"Three Days of the Condor." It might not be your typical political drama—it feels more like a thriller... maybe even better than anything Pollock did (did he even direct one?)

Has anyone seen "The Quiet American" starring Michael Caine?

Yeah, that's a Pollock film featuring Redford and Fay Dunaway watching 🙂))

I watched "The Quiet American"... honestly, it’s way more than just another Saigon-set flick 👍 I'm actually a big fan of Noyce 🙂)) and the cinematography is by Christopher Doyle (in In the Mood for Love) ... 🙂)) I definitely recommend it! 👍

I’m definitely more of a Pollock kind of guy. You talking about Parallax View? That’s Pakula. To be honest, I’ve always gravitated toward movies that wrap political themes inside a story that doesn't look overtly political on the surface—think along the lines of Ace Mته Force of Evil by Abraham Polanski, or even American Friend and Die Hard and... well, you get the idea. I find those much more engaging than the "explicitly" political films. That said, I do have a soft spot for certain flicks from the sixties, like Medium Cool or some of Godard's work from that era, and Zelimir Zilnik of course, plus Plastic Jesus. Then there's the Battle of Algiers, and the German cinema from the seventies (Fassbinder, obviously, and that fantastic omnibus Germany in Autumn), and the Soviet stuff from the twenties and thirties—Dovzhenko and Pudovkin, though I'm not as big on Eisenstein... Strike is way better than Battleship Potemkin. I'll also take Bauer's Face to Face, even if it's one of his weaker ones, and some of Fadil Hazdic's films. I'm also a huge fan of Italian Neorealism—The Bicycle Thief is front and center for me, and Visconti's La Terra Trema back when he was an absolute genius. And, of course, the first ninety minutes of Triumph of the Will (that opening sequence montage is just something else).

Almost forgot... Chaplin's Modern Times.

Pontecorvo's Battle of Algiers is the absolute winner here! It remains one of my all-time favorites. Similarly, Wexler's Medium Cool is just magnificent...

If we take a closer look, Y Tu Mamá También serves as much more than a simple coming-of-age story; it explores themes of dying—friendship, love, and literal mortality—while functioning as a political film that manages to remain remarkably subtle...

As for the extent to which Hollywood films are politicized—whether unconsciously, consciously, or through some strange mixture of intention and accident—that is a subject better suited for an entirely different discussion. However, I am suddenly reminded of that rather mediocre film K-19, if I recall correctly (the one featuring the submarine starring Harrison Ford). Perhaps the movie merely reflects its era—a period defined by the looming dread of catastrophe—but I suspect it goes deeper than that. To me, the film tells a story of Russian tragedy! That seems quite unusual for a country like the USA, where Russia was their most cherished adversary
until just over a decade ago. Yet, as the USA increasingly attempts to find common ground with Russia, such cinematic experiments no longer come as a surprise to me...

Ah, how could I forget Pontecorvo and Visconti's "La Terra Trema" 🙄 though we already brought up Pontecorvo in the thread about war movies...

A few others came to mind too... Nicolas Roeg's "Two Deaths," "Open City" by Rossellini, "Kandahar" by Mohsen Makhmalbaf, and of course, "Gandhi."

And "I Am Cuba," which might lean a bit toward being an overly politicized propaganda piece... but honestly, it's an absolute cinematic masterpiece.

Alan Parker is pretty much known for tackling those heavy, controversial slices of American history or social friction in his films. With "The Life of David Gale," he dives into that messy social fabric—that constant tug-of-war between progressive ideals and the notoriously harsh, reactionary views held by a huge chunk of society. It follows an American activist fighting to abolish the death penalty, operating right in the heart of a state like Texas. The story is gripping, actually quite tense, so calling it a thriller feels pretty spot on. Spacey is masterful here; depending on how you view his tragicomic performance, some might see echoes of his character in "American Beauty." The core of the movie kicks off when David Gale, a well-known anti-death penalty advocate, finds himself on death row. He spends his final four days trying to connect with a journalist from a major weekly magazine, hoping she can help shine a light on the circumstances behind his conviction. By the end, the film really forces you to sit with your thoughts, which means it’s entirely possible it won't be a crowd-pleaser for every American.😉

Pale Blue Eyes said:I’d also add Pakula's "All The President's Men," Frankenheimer's "The Manchurian Candidate," and "Reds" to the list.

Uuuu, yeah... All three are absolute masterpieces. I’d say "Reds" is the only one that gets a four-star rating from me, mostly just because it feels a bit too long. I watched it once a few years back and the details are a little fuzzy, so I really should give it a rewatch soon.

All of the President's people are absolute fucking masterpieces. Honestly, The Manchurian Candidate was one of the most pleasant surprises I had last year—just one of those classic films that popped up on PBS during their Tuesday night lineup.

... I see nobody’s jumped in yet, and I’m intentionally avoiding starting a whole new thread 😉

Just trying to stir the pot a little... here is a review of this movie by some supposed "critic elite," where the writer basically proves they aren't just an idiot, but a complete hack who’s totally closed off to anything intellectually stimulating—unless it's something like "Shrek." Their entire vocabulary seems limited to "Two thumbs up." Personally, I'd give this review ten thumbs up the ass. 😁 Stupid m/f

As of today, I am officially done quoting any American film critic. They're just a bunch of morons piled on top of other morons.

BTW... anyone actually watch the film? 🙂

Hands down, one of the best films ever made about how the political machine actually operates here in the USA.

Bob Roberts

Gerald Barrett25 said:
Well, let's stir the pot a little bit... here is a review of this movie from some supposed "critical elite," which just shows how they aren't just idiots, but totally incompetent fossils who are hermetically sealed off from anything intellectually stimulating—unless it's something like "Shrek." All they know how to say is "Two thumbs up." As for this review, you can take those 10 thumbs up and shove them right up your ass 😁 stupid m/f

At the end of the day, the guy at least made an effort to explain why he gave the film zero stars, whereas you haven't actually offered any reasons why you liked it. Honestly, you've just provided a cheap shot. Besides, Ebert was in a bit of a tight spot because his rating relied heavily on how the film ended, so it wouldn't have been responsible to spoil the plot twists in the review itself.
That said, if you had checked the 'Movie Answer Man' column, you would have seen that he actually answered the readers' questions and detailed the entire ending along with the reasons for his dissatisfaction with the film.

By the way, I haven't actually seen the movie myself, but it seems to me we're hitting on a problem that pops up all too often in the political thriller genre: are you judging the film itself, or are you judging the political idea it carries (regardless of whether you agree with it or not)?

And there you go, things are starting to heat up.

I haven't really dug into the "Movie Answer Man" column before, and honestly—my take on it is pretty scathing. Mostly because if you actually bother to read the review, what seems to bother Ebert most is just the fact that the movie takes place in Texas. He spends half his word count spinning purely political reasons why the film should have been shot in some other state instead. Realistically, that has zero bearing on the film itself or its actual plot, let alone how it ends, yet he devotes massive chunks of text to it. Personally, I think deciding whether a movie is good or bad based solely on its setting is just... well, it's beneath any kind of serious film criticism. You don't even see that kind of logic here on this Forum 😉. On top of that, after reading the follow-up response in "Movie Answer Man," I realized he isn't even giving an accurate picture of the main plot, which feels a bit dishonest.

See, relatively early on, there's a pivotal scene where David Gale gets the chance to face off one-on-one with the Governor of Texas during a televised debate. It quickly becomes clear that Gale's humanist arguments aren't met without some very solid pushback. Gale argues that capital punishment is inhumane and demonstrates how such a heavy sentence fails to serve a positive function in the justice system; however, the film shows that we're dealing with a gray area regarding the moral foundations of American society. Even the Governor makes a few decent counterpoints. In the end, the whole discussion concludes without a resolution, but with one crucial point: the Governor says there's no proof the system is broken, and if Gale can provide the name of even one innocent person executed, he’ll personally fight to abolish the death penalty. Of course, Gale doesn't have that name, and that’s where the seed of the dramatic plot is planted—it's the insurmountable obstacle for the anti-death penalty activist. Given that context, the ending works perfectly; it's the only way it could have gone.

So, regardless of your own political stance on the death penalty, the ending makes sense. That way, you have an answer for yourself when deciding whether you're judging the film based on its underlying political idea or its actual storytelling.

BTW—for the sake of any real discussion about the movie, it’s probably useful to actually watch it. 🙂

Gerald Barrett25 said:The way this movie ends... it really forces you to sit there and think. Because of that, it’s entirely possible that some Americans might not actually enjoy it. 😉

But whose film is it, anyway? Is it Swedish?

Wait, whose movie is this? Is it Swedish?

😁

Regarding what I said earlier—are you suggesting I'm wrong? 😉
Do enlighten me...

p.s. This is a political film, by the way.

Gerald Barrett25 said:😁

Regarding my point—are you suggesting I'm wrong? 😉
Please enlighten me...

p.s. This thread is about political cinema, by the way.

Yes, I am saying you're wrong because what you're doing is just a massive generalization. The USA has roughly 330 million people, ranging from absolute idiots to some of the greatest intellectuals on the planet, all descended from folks who came from every single corner of the globe.

It’s true that there’s a certain slice of the population that's too lazy to actually think—people who want everything served up in bite-sized, black-and-white answers—but there is absolutely another side to this coin. At the end of the day, even "Bowling for Columbine" is an American film, just like countless other political movies out there. And let's be real, most of those various independent commissions and committees working toward a fairer distribution of power and global wealth? They're largely comprised of Americans, aren't they?

Yeah, I’d argue that’s just a generalization. Not really accurate.

My point stands, though—most Americans just aren't looking for movies that demand heavy lifting. It’s standard practice in the industry, even among serious cinephiles here in the States, and the executives at major studios like Disney or Warner Bros. know it all too well. That’s why everything gets split into two camps: the massive blockbusters and the "European-style" indies. Might be worth doing a little reading on the subject if you're interested; the info is out there for anyone willing to look.

And look, New York City certainly doesn't fit that mold, but then again, only a tiny fraction of NYC does. We don't have exact statistics, obviously, but judging by the sheer scale of marketing blitzes and how much cash is being dumped into theater registers, my argument holds water.