Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
There's been a certain amnesia in the collective memory when it comes to the 2000 presidential election. Part of that can probably be traced to 9/11. The rest is pure buyer's remorse. And perhaps now that Bush has some of the lowest approval ratings ever recorded, it might be the perfect time to revisit that perverse moment, without precedent in modern US history, where for 36 days we weren't sure who our next president would be.
Every one of us already knows how this story ends. But Recount, which premieres on HBO this Sunday, is so skillfully made that it generates more nail-biting suspense than any other recent movie we can think of. The cleverest choice that director Jay Roach and writer Danny Strong make is to keep Bush and Gore largely offscreen. Instead we see how things play out among the campaign staffers and lawyers, including Gore campaign chairman William Daley. Remember him? When Bush counsel Ben Ginsburg (played by Bob Balaban at his slimiest) first sees news coverage of Daley's decision to challenge the Florida vote count, he rails at the TV, "His daddy stole the election for JFK and now he's gonna steal it for Gore!"
Didn't happen. The movie nimbly shifts between the complicated succession of suits and countersuits, press conferences and rebuttal press conferences. Along the way we get a juicy characterization of Katherine Harris (courtesy of Laura Dern) as a self-absorbed clothes horse who seems equally puzzled and envigorated by her sudden thrust into the spotlight. The story's climax, a Supreme Court decision that still boggles the mind, is the stuff of Kafka. Particularly since there's no reason why it couldn't happen again.
To some of course the whole movie will smack of Hollywood revisionism. Undoubtedly events and characters have been compressed and fictionalized for dramatic effect. But much like Barbarians at the Gate, there's an awful lot at its core that'll stick in your craw.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Funny, you left out the fact that the current Congress has the lowest recorded approval rating ever, as well. Hmmm. Gee, does Rob have an agenda? This fact has as much relevance as citing President Bush's approval ratings. Oddly, the election that put Kennedy in the White House was rigged in Illinois, and the Illinois votes did put Kennedy over the top. We are lucky to have had the Daley's working for us and not against us.
Oh Tracadie, you must be a joy to know personally. Can you link to a post where you didn't piss and moan?
@Trac:
That was the craziest way to analyze the above post ever. The reason he didn't cite Congressional approval ratings is because an insane recount didn't contribute to the election of the Senate or what have you. I think what he is trying to say is "FL got it wrong" which, as evidenced by Bush's record low approval ratings, seems accurate. If your agenda is to be an idiot, mission accomplished.
Also: Bush v. Gore is the day that the term "activist judge" was embraced by Republicans across the world.
Lefties on Parade!
Hollywood lightweights try again to rewrite history. Remember what Hollywood gave us with "Charlie Wilson's War." That's where we learned that a Democratic congressman was the guy who brought down the Soviet Union and communism in the 1980's.
Funny. That movie never mentioned Ronald Reagan or the Republican policies of that decade. I guess they had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. In fact, the only Republicans in "Charlie Wilson's War" were portrayed as selfish buffoons. I'm sure that movie made liberals happy.
Now we have the liberals crying some more about the 2000 election. Of course, the major Republicans will be misrepresented, as you can see from the descriptions above of Bob Balabans' character and Laura Dern's character.
Way to go, Tinseltown. Never let the truth get in the way of liberal self-righteousness!
Wait, Ward, have you seen Recount?
Ward: So, you've seen the movie already, then?
Or are you just on autopilot, as Harbor seems to be?
Several newspapers went back and counted all the votes in Fl. UsA today NY Times, Wall street journal and many others. Bush won the state and it was right in the end but the whole debacle was terrible to watch. This is like hollywoods take on Iraq, Lions for lambs, stop loss, leftist propaganda that no one watches.
I am going to see this movie for the cast alone.
And I will say this once and for all, the ballots they used in Palm Beach County were confusing if not downright illegal.
@fed up:
"Recount" is just as much about the pathetically flawed voting "systems" that were/are in place in Florida as it is about whether Bush or Gore won. And let's not forget about those infamous purged voting rolls ...
kinda like the unpurged voting rolls full of dead people keeping a certain midget mayor mumbles in control of chicago crook co.
And I will say this once and for all, the ballots they used in Palm Beach County were confusing if not downright illegal.
Not to get into all that again, but the ballots were pre-approved by the local chapters of both parties before the election, so they have no one to blame but themselves.
Golly, nearly eight years later and some people can't get over the fact Gore lost. Never have two less qualified people sparred over an office so great as that election, yet never have people made such a big deal about it.
So a year after Obama takes office with a much higher percentage of Dems in Congress, who will people blame for high gas prices, the economy, and the fact 100,000 plus troops will be in Iraq? Just because it is easy to blame GW for your lot in life, it doesn't mean it is true.
Sears... uh whut?
We've had like almost 8 years of Bush and most of it with a Republican majority. They're clearly to blame for America sinking into the mire. And yep Obama (if elected) well have a major mess to clean up, I'm not sure if it's possibly frankly. Who else would you blame for the economy and Iraq? You must be joking.
Sears' point is that the public has a fickle memory and blame the person standing in front of them.
Oh, we'd agree on that. But then the tower says this, implying that the funk this country's in doesn't exist or is actually somebody elses fault:
Just because it is easy to blame GW for your lot in life, it doesn't mean it is true.
Margaret, please don't use the "...you haven't seen the movie so you can't comment about it.." argument.
Note that I am not writing a review or speaking as a public figure about the movie. I am a commenter on a blog.
Furthermore, I have read several reviews of the movie, in addition to the Chicagoist article above. No reading between the lines was required. Just look at the reported portrayals of Republicans in the movie, in the Chicagoist article and elsehwere.
Democrats continually lost elections in the 00's becuase they were bitching about the 'stolen' election of 2000 and couldn't focus on anything but hating republicans. Now all the sudden they start seeing some wins at the exact time they stop crying about losing the election, and what do they do?- Go right back to crying about the damn 2000 election!!! Unbelievable.
"Furthermore, I have read several reviews of the movie, in addition to the Chicagoist article above. No reading between the lines was required. Just look at the reported portrayals of Republicans in the movie, in the Chicagoist article and elsehwere."
Very post-modern approach to criticism and original work from a person who identifies as a conservative. Interesting.
"Note that I am not writing a review or speaking as a public figure about the movie. I am a commenter on a blog.
Well, I guess that means you can say anything about anything while absolving yourself of any accountability or responsibility to be intellectually honest. Again, interesting approach for a self-identified conservative.
Matilda, you obviously like to twist words into pretzels to fit your agenda. Sort of like the makers of leftist Hollywood films!
Ward: No, I just like to examine what people say in their own words. As you do, too, right?
I just find it silly to denounce something you've not seen. No, I don't care if you like this movie, and I doubt I'll even watch it, and don't try to guess my views of the 2000 election, either, because you likely will be wrong. I just don't respect ideas that are stuck on autopilot, that's all, as your ideas about this movie clearly are. In other words, I am calling Bullshit on your criticisms of this flick.
I cant believe they cast Ed begley jr as a left wing nut.That will really test his acting skills
I remember what happend in 2000. I was still in H.S. but I remember a lot of ppl on the left were told to just "Get Over It"
I will check out this flick on HBO.
Maria
I just finished watching the movie, and I found it rather insulting as a person. The movie has an obviously leftist agenda and to say anything else is ignorant. There is a clear bias against the Republican side as exhibited by the characterization used in the movie such as even little things as wardrobe. The angle of the movie is showed by the line by the protestors ~ "We won't be a disturbance, look how we are dressed." Even the members of the two different parties could clearly be identified simply by the Republicans wearing nicer, more polished looking suits with their hair slicked back, representing "sharks" versus the really relaxed look of the Democrats. Whether you enjoyed this hollywood depiction of the 2000 election or not, due to the bias of this movie, it should not be used as a documentation of actual events.
Even the members of the two different parties could clearly be identified simply by the Republicans wearing nicer, more polished looking suits with their hair slicked back, representing "sharks" versus the really relaxed look of the Democrats.
I don't know about sharks or the movie, but that nicely sums up the aesthetic choices/political divisions in the office in which I work.
They should have started the Recount movie with Ross Perot apoligizing to the American people on CNN the night before the election. He was apoligizing for running for President in 1992 that led to 8 years of Clinton/Gore (corruption, scandals, use of our military as peace-keepers instead of taking on global terrorist threats, failure to capture bin Laden when offered several times). He said the American people should vote GW Bush.
Second, they did not highlight the major flaw of the election - the fact that the Florida panhandle is in a different time zone and that the 3 major networks called Florida for Gore prior to the polls closing in the panhandle. Fox News was the first to say Gore had not won the state but we don't know how many folks did not vote due to hearing that Gore had won Florida from the 3 major networks. This was a plan in the liberal media to win the election for Gore - no doubt in my mind.
Shortly after 9/11 many Gore supporters said "thank God Gore did NOT win the election" as he would not have known what to do. If he and Bill had taken appropriate action to capture bin Laden and made changes to airline security then 9/11 would have been much harder to achieve.
GW Bush, much like Reagan, will be more appreciated after he leaves office. He made some mistakes in Iraq and acted slowly in securing our borders but he did stimulate the economy with tax cuts and appointed constitutionalist judges on the Supreme Court.
Obama, like Hillary, will not be elected because America does not want socialized medicine, big bloated Federal govt nor high taxes. McCain will finish the war on terror by taking care of Iran and N Korea once and for all and remove illegal aliens and getMexico on-board and get them to pay for the chaos they caused by failing to help prevent the exodus from Mexico - they must create a financial system like the US. 2008 election is just as important as the 2000 election was but I don't think it will be close... McCain does not have high negatives like Hillary and Obama do. Congress will become more conservative (Republican and Democrat) and less liberal (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Frank Lautenberg are the minority).
"(corruption, scandals, use of our military as peace-keepers instead of taking on global terrorist threats, failure to capture bin Laden when offered several times)"--so sayeth the so-called conservative.
Funny. Sounds just like 8 years of Bush Jr., especially given that Iraq has been in a low level civil war for a few years, and that Iraq was not the priority when it came to state-sponsored terrorism.
And that stimulated economy sure is working wonders now, ain't it?
God, sometimes it is like shooting red fish in the red barrel.