I saw The Candidate at the time of its release and caught it again this week. From the underplayed acting, tight editing, over-all cynical-yet-matter-of fact tone, the film doesn't seem dated.
What do younger (and older) people think?
I agree, the issues are the same as today, only the cast has aged!!
shareIt's also the understated, matter-of-fact cynicism of the operatives that resonates today.
But you're right about the actors. What a difference between the late Peter Boyle here and the senior on Everyone Loves Raymond.On Raymond,he looked more like the Monster in Young Frankenstein!
Not dated at all! OMG when you look at the topics that are addressed, ie abortion, healthcare, environment, it's all still extremely relative today because we as a country are quite divided by those issues.
I absolutely loved the honest down-to-earth, even monotone way the film shows Bill's journey to the finish. It presents the race as it is. It leaves the Media coverage aspect at the door and gives it to us straight. The understated, matter-of-fact cynicism is to be expected. Politics are no different today really.
ξΌWhen will you ever learn, this feeling is all you can discern?ξ€
Fresh. The same debates and the same lack of real content in campaigns are going on today as they were back in 1972. And many voters are still buying into the nonsense.
Saw the movie again tonight on TCM and it is still fantastic and very realistic.
My real name is Jeff
Even the acting style, as if the lines were improvised, continues to this day. One exception is the scene with the great Melvyn Douglas, out of the old Hollywood way of emoting, who seemed out of place.
shareActually within the context of the movie I think the "old Hollywood" style worked very well. His father was part of the political machine, in an obvious way that was of a different time. He represents the last political generation and an old fashioned mentality. The contrast between Douglas and the young generation is a key part of the movie.
shareThat flamboyance would have been fine in a public forum. But Mel was speaking to his son privately, one on one. Director Ritchie reeled in Mel to a certain extent, but his didn't really mesh with Redford's low-key, matter of fact acting style that was appropriate for the film's semi-documentary presentation.
shareVery fresh! Same issues. . . unemployment, medical care, housing, education, the poor. . . nothing has changed! WHY??? This film is 43 years old. . ..why do we have the same issues???
shareThis film is 43 years old. . ..why do we have the same issues???
This film is 43 years old. . ..why do we have the same issues???
Two major reasons:
1) most human beings will do almost anything to avoid confronting reality; and
2) we tend to like politicians who parrot back to us our ignorant, or biased, beliefs, rather than telling us the truth.
It seems to be a bit of both. The imaging still happens. It sadly matters more to some content and context. The character model seems very JFK like with bits of those which came later seeping in unexpectedly.
Just caught the last half of this. I'd say fresh but in that way classics remain relevant. As the films age and new audiences find them, the message also changes.
The message in 1972 was probably very cynical, along the lines of "You can't beat the Establishment if you join them." Now that the Baby Boomers have gotten older and found out they weren't the unique, golden boy revolutionaries as advertised, just a particularly large age cohort, there's more of a universal message of how inheriting the mantel of political leadership is a bit more complicated than, say, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" makes it sound.
Politics is complex. *Maybe* it's inherently corrupting, but regardless, staying on message is harder than it looks. That's why it corrupts people in the first place.
Another thing I got from the story, especially the ending, is that getting into office and executing that office are two entirely different things that require a nearly incompatible skill set and moral orientation. I like that it ended with his winning. I think the more-common nihilistic 70s film message that you can't beat the Establishment, so don't even try, is a cop-out in its own right.
Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com
Another thing I got from the story, especially the ending, is that getting into office and executing that office are two entirely different things that require a nearly incompatible skill set and moral orientation. I like that it ended with his winning.
This whole concept reminds me of what Cass Elliot said about being involved in the "counterculture"; I'm paraphrasing here, but it was along the lines of "The biggest letdown in my life was when I realized that pop groups are part of everything that they're supposed to be against".
shareI don't see the message of the movie as cynical, either in 1972 or today. It is idealistic to see the way Bill becomes what he most despises in order to win the election and to portray it in the movie - it isn't approving. The movie doesn't give us any answers, but it is idealistic to point to the problem and say: we need to address this. The movie does this very well.
My real name is Jeff
where's trump fit in the picture?
π΄π΄π΄π΄π΄π΄π΄π΄π΄
My thread and initial message are about a year old before Donald T., Sanders, and about any other prez hopeful were in the race. But my points are still valid: "underplayed acting, tight editing, over-all cynical-yet-matter-of fact tone, the film doesn't seem dated."
Now, it would be tough to underplay Trump! Or even Sanders for that matter. Redford's character was more aligned politically to Bernie and would be about his age today, 75.
I will agree with many of the posts that find the film still relatively fresh.
However, the casual misogyny is pretty jarring.
The topics talked about and overall plot is not dated. But the direction, pacing, editing and humor are.
shareNot dated. Politicians often start out with great ideas, but when you have campaign managers and those who contribute money to your campaign, you have to change your views to get the votes. Redford's character originally wanted to do it his way, but in the end gave in. It was fitting that he asked the campaign manager "What now?" after he won.
shareAbsolutely. Just update the technology employed and the material remains fresh.
shareIts pretty amazing to watch it "today." (And "today" with that 1972 movie can be 1982, 1992...2012, 2022).
The issues haven't really changed. The arguments haven't really changed. And the lies haven't really changed.
What perhaps has changed is that there are more female politicians and politicians of color than we see among the real politicians of 1972 who were filmed in that movie (along with the nationally famous Hubert Humphrey, the movie has documentary-like footage of about 20 California Democratic politicans of the time.) This is at once a good thing in terms of "diversity of power" and a bad thing in terms of "diversity of selling out." (We have plenty of phony female politicians around these days to go with the male ones.)
I suppose we can figure that these issues will outlive us all, and just continue on to new generations..