The Front Runner (2018)

[Winston T. Boogie]

Title: The Front Runner

Tagline: Gary Hart was going to be President. Instead he changed American Politics forever.

Genre: Drama

Director: Jason Reitman

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Vera Farmiga, J.K. Simmons, Alfred Molina, Sara Paxton, Kaitlyn Dever, Ari Graynor, Mike Judge, Toby Huss, Kevin Pollak, Evan Castelloe, Jennifer Landon, John Bedford Lloyd, William Walker, Bill Burr, Jonny Pasvolsky, Spencer Garrett, Gabriel Manak, Lee Armstrong, Molly Ephraim, Courtney Ford, Mark O'Brien, Josh Brener, Tommy Dewey, Jenna Kanell, Chris Coy, Oliver Cooper

Release: 2018-11-07

Runtime: 112

Plot: American Senator Gary Hart’s presidential campaign in 1988 is derailed when he’s caught in a scandalous love affair.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

My favorite film from Jason remains Thank You For Smoking which I wish would get a blu-ray release but this looks like it could be really good.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Here's a good little article on the film and I particularly liked reading this:

To capture the atmosphere of an intense campaign, Reitman shot the film cinema verite style, inspired by Michael Richie’s ’70s classics “Downhill Racer, “The Candidate,” and “Smile.” His cast and background extras were prepared to be filmed from any angle, improvising scenes on demand (and constantly challenging the sound mixer).

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/11/t...y-hart-hugh-jackman-jason-reitman-1202018070/

 

[mattCR]

I'd agree that Thank You For Smoking is a truly brilliant film... it is just hard for me to picture Hugh as Gary Hart...

 

[Jake Lipson]

My favorite film from Jason remains Thank You For Smoking which I wish would get a blu-ray release

Amen to that. Weird to think that film will soon become Disney's property, which decreases its chances of being released since they never pay attention to their live-action catalog. I wish Fox or Disney would at least license it out somewhere for Blu-ray.

Anyway, I have no idea when we are going to get The Front Runner here -- things usually have to be decently wide to reach us -- but I'm looking forward to seeing it whenever it does come.

 

[benbess]

I like Hugh Jackman, but I am not so far interested in this film, which seems to be trying to make Hart into some kind of hero/victim. That's not really the main take away that I got from the events of 30 years ago.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Every year we get a mix of movies that look like Oscar shoo-ins but they fall far short of expectations.

For 2018, "Front Runner" is a front runner for that slot.

And it deserves to be an also-ran, as it's not a good movie.

Not that it's a terrible movie, but it lacks real purpose and tends toward lecturing and moralizing too much of the time - inconsistently, I might add.

At times the movie seems to want to berate the way serious newspapers "went tabloid" for the Hart affair. It clearly casts shame on those who pursued Hart's illicit dealings and pompously embraces a higher moral purpose.

But the movie wants to have it both ways, so it finds room to bolster a free press - vaguely. It prefers that moralizing I mentioned, a factor that makes it feel oddly out of place in 2018. Given all the threats to the First Amendment mounted by the current presidential administration, a film that appears to encourage voluntary suppression of journalism seems misguided.

"Front Runner" also immediately loses credibility due to sloppy choices. The film starts with the 1984 campaign and that part of the story culminates in the aftermath of that year's Democratic National Convention.

Then a title card reads "four years later" - even though the story itself picks up in either later 1986 or early 1987. The entire film ends in spring 1987, less than three years after the events from 1984.

Over in the discussion of "Bohemian Rhapsody", we debated ad infinitum about how many liberties a biopic should deserve. When filmmakers can't even count, that's a major problem, as it casts doubt on everything to follow.

If those involved don't understand that 1987 minus 1984 equals three, not four, why would I trust them with anything else they present as true? Or did the filmmakers intend for the audience to believe the movie takes place in 1988?

I don't know, but it's sloppy and off-putting. As is the case with "Rhapsody", I lived through these events and remember them too well to accept poor accuracy as "cinematic liberties".

Even without these gaffes, "Front Runner" just lacks much obvious insight or purpose. It fails to explore its lead character well, as we get little sense what made Hart tick.

Oh, the movie gives us a superficial view of the man as one obsessed with his policy ideas to the exclusion of all else, but it sheds no light on why he led a personal life that took so many risks. We get allusions to affairs prior to 1987 but no real introspection, so Hart remains an oddly one-dimensional character.

No one else gets more room to breathe either. The film utterly wastes Very Farmiga as Hart's wife, and a cast packed with talent lacks the ability to elevate their parts due to the inherent thinness of the script.

By the way, who thought it was a good idea to cast Alfred Molina as Ben Bradlee? Molina couldn't look less like Bradlee if he tried, as he's the wrong ethnicity and a good 80 pounds too heavy. I didn't even realize Molina was supposed to be Bradlee until someone called him "Ben", and I nearly jumped out of my seat with shock given what an awkward fit Molina is for that role.

This is one area where prior films sabotage Molina's viability. We've had more than 40 years during which we viewed Jason Robards as "Ben Bradlee" - and based on what I've heard from those who know Bradlee, Robards nailed the part. More recently, Tom Hanks offered his own turn on Bradlee, one that differed from Robards but not in a severe manner.

In terms of acting, Molina does fine in his limited screentime, but the utter lack of resemblance becomes a bridge too far. If we didn't already know Bradlee so well from Robards and Hanks, maybe he'd succeed, but with those actors - and reality - as a backdrop, Molina becomes a weird casting choice.

As for our lead, Jackman disappoints. I like him as an actor and think he boasts dramatic talent, but here Jackman does little more than scowl and appear annoyed. It's less a performance and more outtakes of Wolverine when he gets irritated with Cyclops.

I can't call "Front Runner" a truly bad movie, but it's a significant letdown given the talent involved and its potential. Superficial, erratically paced and generally dull, the movie goes nowhere...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I wasn’t as down on Front Runner as Colin, but don’t mistake that for being high on it either.

For me, it was one of those movies that left my head as soon as I left the theater. (I actually did see it the same day I saw Bohemian Rhapsody.)

And I completely agree that I couldn’t figure out what the movie’s purpose was. I’m not sure what it’s argument was. Was the point that Hart was such a genius at civil service that his indescretions should have been irrelevant? If that was the point, it didn’t really show us any political genius coming from Hart. Was the point that the press’s interest in catching him was unseemly? Well, as shown in the film, Hart tells the press to stalk him - why shouldn’t they have called his bluff? Was the thesis that if Gary Hart had become president, our entire political system would be different than it is today? If so, the film fails to make that argument.

Jackman is supposedly the lead, but it felt like he was barely in it. He’s onscreen a bunch, but it’s often as a passive presence in the background.

I went into the movie cold, not knowing exactly what it was about and not having seen a trailer. After seeing the movie, I’m still not sure I could tell you what it was about. I could tell you what happened in it, sure, but I couldn’t tell you what the message was.

 

[Jake Lipson]

This opened here this past weekend alongside the wide openings of Ralph Breaks the Internet and Creed II.

I love the cast, and I have enjoyed several of Jason Reitman's past films, including Tully, which I thought was overlooked earlier this year, which is why I thought I was looking forward to this film.

But now that it's here..I don't really know that I care that much about it. I had time for two movies this past weekend and they were Ralph and Creed.

This year, documentaries have been doing very well in general (Won't You Be My Neighbor?, Three Identical Strangers, Free Solo, etc.), but political documentaries like Fahrenheit 11/9 have been struggling. I feel like this might also be affecting this film even though it isn't a documentary. Personally, I feel like I don't really want a story about a political scandal right now. I get more than enough politics when I turn on the news. I don't need to pay to see more of this.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I wasn’t as down on Front Runner as Colin, but don’t mistake that for being high on it either.

For me, it was one of those movies that left my head as soon as I left the theater. (I actually did see it the same day I saw Bohemian Rhapsody.)

And I completely agree that I couldn’t figure out what the movie’s purpose was. I’m not sure what it’s argument was. Was the point that Hart was such a genius at civil service that his indescretions should have been irrelevant? If that was the point, it didn’t really show us any political genius coming from Hart. Was the point that the press’s interest in catching him was unseemly? Well, as shown in the film, Hart tells the press to stalk him - why shouldn’t they have called his bluff? Was the thesis that if Gary Hart had become president, our entire political system would be different than it is today? If so, the film fails to make that argument.

Jackman is supposedly the lead, but it felt like he was barely in it. He’s onscreen a bunch, but it’s often as a passive presence in the background.

I went into the movie cold, not knowing exactly what it was about and not having seen a trailer. After seeing the movie, I’m still not sure I could tell you what it was about. I could tell you what happened in it, sure, but I couldn’t tell you what the message was.

The movie does leave the impression that the filmmakers believe Hart was unfairly deprived the presidency due to a little hanky-panky and that the world would've been a better place with him at the helm.

And it might be right. Should Hart have been "disqualified" because he fooled around on this wife? Hart wouldn't have been the first president to do so, and to a large degree, it's pretty irrelevant to the job at hand.

Though I do see one difference between JFK or Clinton or whoever: Hart did it while he knew he was being scrutinized for potential cheating. Even if we ignore the "follow me around" comment - which the movie takes pains to indicate wasn't the impetus for the Miami paper's investigation - Hart was already on the hot seat for prior indiscretions.

Does cheating always call the perpetrator's judgment into question? No, but in this case, it did. If Hart was that sloppy while under the microscope, could he be trusted in other ways? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's more of a discussion than for others.

Other potential debate: what would've happened if Hart just fessed up and apologized? After all, 4 years later, Clinton won the White House despite his multiple affairs - if Hart got in front of it and begged for forgiveness with the dutiful wife at his side, would that have "fixed" the problem?

Maybe, but again, the fact Hart cheated during the campaign creates one obvious contrast. Heck, maybe Clinton continued to fool around in 1992, but if so, I don't believe that's documented. The fact Hart's affair was current, not in the past, may've made a difference.

But we'll never know - and the movie poorly addresses these topics...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Footnote: in summer 1986, I attended a Stevie Wonder show at the DC-area basketball arena.

Right before showtime, Gary Hart plopped down next to me with a young man I assume was his son.

I didn't say anything to him - we exchanged a couple of glances, with mine being the "you're Gary Hart!" kind. His were neither welcoming nor dissuading, but I figured it was best to leave him alone, partly because I didn't really have anything to say for him. I liked him as a candidate but I wasn't some true believer fan.

This'd be a better story if he was there with two hot blondes, but alas, it was just his son!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

This is a short interview with Hart that I think works as a nice compliment to the film.

 

[Elizabeth S]

Jackman is supposedly the lead, but it felt like he was barely in it. He’s onscreen a bunch, but it’s often as a passive presence in the background.

This was my main issue with the film -- it didn't even try to portray Hart as a three-dimensional person. While I hadn't seen/heard much about the film prior, I felt it was the kind of role that had Oscar potential -- but NO. It was much more interested in the media, Donna Rice, and his campaign staff. And Vera Farmiga didn't even get a "Beatrice Straight moment". The film really plays coy and seems to entertain the notion that he didn't have a relationship with Rice. Where is the mention of the infamous photograph of her sitting on his lap on Monkey Business?

The whole concept of the role of media is very relevant and interesting. It's sad how possibly good potential Presidents have been taken down by scandal -- like John Edwards, who seemed like a sure front runner. (And Howard Dean, counted out for even less -- "yaaaaaaah!!!!!")

 

[Colin Jacobson]

This was my main issue with the film -- it didn't even try to portray Hart as a three-dimensional person. While I hadn't seen/heard much about the film prior, I felt it was the kind of role that had Oscar potential -- but NO. It was much more interested in the media, Donna Rice, and his campaign staff. And Vera Farmiga didn't even get a "Beatrice Straight moment". The film really plays coy and seems to entertain the notion that he didn't have a relationship with Rice. Where is the mention of the infamous photograph of her sitting on his lap on Monkey Business?

The whole concept of the role of media is very relevant and interesting. It's sad how possibly good potential Presidents have been taken down by scandal -- like John Edwards, who seemed like a sure front runner. (And Howard Dean, counted out for even less -- "yaaaaaaah!!!!!")

Edwards didn't drop out of the 2008 race due to his affair - he dropped out because he wasn't getting enough votes...

 

[Elizabeth S]

But perhaps he would have run again another time if he didn't have that hanging over him.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

But perhaps he would have run again another time if he didn't have that hanging over him.

Well, he wouldn't have run in 2012, so 2016 would've been Edwards' next shot, and I don't see why his prior scandal would've had an impact.

The US elected a twice-divorced man who had multiple affairs over his life - if people wanted Edwards, why would his affair have been an issue?

Edwards had a theoretical shot in 2008 but voters said "nope".

He wasn't gonna run against Obama in 2012.

He wasn't gonna run against Hillary in 2016. While she obviously had competition, it came from the left, and Edwards was too "establishment" to make sense.

Also, he'd been out of politics for years - who would've been interested in him as a candidate?

Face it: extramarital affairs officially ceased to be "disqualifying" when Clinton got elected...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Although I think it’s fair to say that the jury is still out on whether the country would elect a man who conceived a “love child” while having an affair during an active campaign, particularly when the candidate’s wife was dying of terminal cancer.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The movie does leave the impression that the filmmakers believe Hart was unfairly deprived the presidency due to a little hanky-panky and that the world would've been a better place with him at the helm.

And it might be right. Should Hart have been "disqualified" because he fooled around on this wife? Hart wouldn't have been the first president to do so, and to a large degree, it's pretty irrelevant to the job at hand.

Though I do see one difference between JFK or Clinton or whoever: Hart did it while he knew he was being scrutinized for potential cheating. Even if we ignore the "follow me around" comment - which the movie takes pains to indicate wasn't the impetus for the Miami paper's investigation - Hart was already on the hot seat for prior indiscretions.

It's worth noting that while there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to him having had an affair, it was never conclusively proven that he slept with Donna Rice. The Miami Herald didn't have anybody watching the back door on the night of the supposed alleged sexual encounter, and never saw her leave. The reporters therefore concluded that she'd spent the night. In addition to being salacious, that made the reporting sloppy.

He withdrew from the race (for a time) because the Washington Post was threatening to publish a story about a sexual relationship he had while separated from his wife, and he didn't want his family dragged through the mud as tabloid fodder too.

I do think the shift in campaign coverage from being driven by primarily by policy and platform to being driven primarily by personality and optics has had a detrimental effect on the quality of the candidates we've had since. On the other hand, powerful men being sexual in professional contexts has not aged particularly well in the #MeToo moment. The lessons of Hart's downfall are therefore somewhat murky.

Even if all of this hadn't gone down and Hart had gotten the nomination, I think Reagan's coattails would still have been too strong for Bush Sr. to lose, anyway.

This will probably be a Redbox for me. Jason Reitman's been hit or miss for me lately.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Not so sure about the inevitability of a Bush win in 1988. Dukakis was a frankly terrible candidate, whereas Hart had a lot of momentum behind him until his downfall...