131 - Bobby review

Did you know that if Robert Kennedy had been elected president, he would have put an end to the Vietnam War? Did you know that he would have exorcised the scourge of racism from our nation, that everyone would have been made a millionaire, Elvis would be alive, and the "Star Wars" prequels wouldn’t have been such an earth-shattering disappointment?

The mystique surrounding JFK, RFK, and the senator from Chappaquiddick often baffles me. Almost as confusing as the continued presence of the Swimmer in the U.S. Senate is the tendency of the dreamers of a world that never was to point to speeches and anecdotal evidence as proof that things would turn in a different, more preferable direction than the way things actually turned out. Doesn’t even a cursory glance at the political process revel that actions, not speeches, are what bear the weight of history? The idea of Robert Kennedy bringing an end to the Vietnam War and doing wonders for civil rights is nothing more than pure speculation. I’ve heard these sort of far-flung fantasies about the Kennedy’s since I was in jr. high, and now I’ve just through an entire film pushing one.

That said, I found Emilio Estevez’s "Bobby" to be a surprisingly entertaining, often heartfelt look at an array of characters, set entirely at the Ambassador Hotel on the 1968 day where Robert Kennedy was cut down by an assassin’s bullet. Kennedy isn’t actually a character himself, but a vague, thoroughly lionized figure whose upcoming appearance at the hotel in one way or another affects the lives of the numerous people staying and working at the hotel.

And I do mean numerous. The huge cast reads like an attempted "Who’s Who" list of film actors from 1990 to the present. Laurence Fishburne, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Hunt, Ashton Kutcher, Lindsay Lohan, William H. Macy, Demi Moore, Martin Sheen, Christian Slater, Sharon Stone, Elijah Wood, and Estevez himself star, and that’s not even a complete list of the familiar names. Putting this many famous together could easily get gimmicky, but it proves to be a wise stroke of casting, as we can easily tell everyone apart.

But the strength of the labyrinthine plot proves to be a double-edged sword; while the segments rarely outstay their welcome, we’re faced with plot overload, as each character comes packaged with his or her own theme. Just as I could tick off the huge cast one by one, I can duplicate that feat with themes: politics, racism, working-class labor, marriage, immigration, Vietnam, alcoholism, drug use, aging, love, voting, violence, and even chads all cross the thematic threshold, and before long we can’t tell just exactly what the hell "Bobby" is supposed to be about. Interestingly, Estevez entirely omits any information on the assassin, perhaps to dodge the potentially flammable political issue that motivated the killer to pull the trigger.

Unfortunately peppered throughout the film are clips of RFK and the social disorder prevalent in the late 1960’s. Right in between scenes that actually advance the story, we’re subjected to 5 minutes of RFK politicking. The usage of this footage painfully underscores a lack of confidence from Estevez, a nervous feeling that his material isn’t strong enough to stand on its own and needed to be padded for impact.

He really should have foregone that nonsense. The good to excellent work from the whole cast (though a goofy drug use subplot sticks out like a sore thumb) makes for a fascinating narrative, and even the relatively small time each actor receives manages to be enough to earn the audience’s valuable sympathy. But the silly hero worship, supposedly the frame and topic of the film, could be removed all together. Then we’d have more of the good parts, and I certainly don’t consider that mere speculation.

3 out of 5

130 - The Queen review

"Sleeping in the streets and pulling out their hair for someone they never knew. And they think we're mad!" Prince Philip (James Cromwell) vents to his wife, Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren). Diana, Princess of Wales, has just died in a car wreck, and the British people are reacting as if their leader and messiah had kicked the bucket.

But Diana’s death isn’t the subject of "The Queen," nor is it primarily about Elizabeth. Instead of a biography, we have a delicate, thoughtful study of the way world’s most famous royal family has been forced to changed by a rapidly "modernizing" world. The family has lived in splendor that makes even a proud capitalist like myself wince, but their lives are far from easy, with a moral responsibility that would crush a god, but must be borne by a mere mortal.

Even as we know that the British monarchy doesn’t yield anywhere near the power that a typical Western head of state does, I was surprised to see how in many ways, they are at the virtual mercy of their subjects. The demise of Diana shakes the public to its core, but Elizabeth insists on treating the death like it would any other outside of the family; by doing and saying nothing.

Cold as it may seem at a glance, Elizabeth is following tradition, a set of rules strictly followed for hundreds of years before she was born. Nonetheless, the public, fueled by the notoriously vicious British press, demands concessions such as putting a flag half-mast over Buckingham Palace and a royal funeral, all for a woman who was no longer part of that family.

"The Queen" devotes time to the governmental aspect of the Diana crisis, with newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) working overtime to tread the thin line between an angry populace and the queen. His advisors lean leftward away from the monarchy, and even his wife (Helen McCroy) stops just short of directly disrespecting Elizabeth, an unthinkable act for her more conservative husband. Blair has no desire to see the monarchy damaged, but finds himself willing to pressure the queen to acquiesce to the national mood.

Throughout the film, one question kept popping into mind; how can the British citizens respect the monarchy yet demand it bend to satisfy their desires? Aren’t traditions and reserve two of the qualities that have endeared people to this fabulously privileged family? What worth does the monarchy have if they, like all other politicians in a democracy, have to dance to the tune of every idiot with a TV set?

These questions alarm Elizabeth, who contemplates them with a silent horror spelled out in her eyes. The film claims these few days represented the most potent threat to the monarchy in Elizabeth’s lifetime, with 1 in 4 polled Britons advocating the abolition of the institution. Even Blair remarks in amazement that after 45 years of dutifully fulfilling her role as sovereign, opinion turns on her over the death of a woman who was no longer a royal, had embarrassed the family to no end, and that Elizabeth likely despised.

The unfamiliar and the disinterested should beware as little to no background information on the family is given, and no attempt to please those who find the subject boring is made. Somewhat perplexing is the near complete lack of focus on the personal grief of Diana’s children, which could have slowed down the pace, but feels conspicuous with its absence. I went with a friend, no intellectual slouch, and he dozed off after about 15 minutes.

I, however, found the pace to be brisk and the narrative fascinating. We know that the monarchy doesn’t fall, but director Stephen Frears deftly enables a degree of suspense and curiosity to exist through the excellent performances, particularly Helen Mirren’s, which has already generated significant Oscar buzz (check out her profile on the IMDB for a good Oscar quote). I’m by no stretch an expert on the real Elizabeth, but if this film is indicative of her true character and will, then long live the queen.

3.5 out of 5