Anyone want to discuss the actual film?

Good analysis on your part too; thanks for sharing.

You're welcome.

I'd be curious to hear what specific elements you feel were hard to swallow.

There were four narrative developments in particular that, from my perspective, strained credulity too far. The first two were not that big of a deal, but the second two proved more problematic for me. (To those who have not seen the film, beware the spoilers.)

1) ... when Sloane tells her boss at the firm that she has raised $15M million (I believe) for a gun control super PAC. I find it very difficult to believe that —even with the highly independent nature of her character—she would have never told him something earlier or that he would never have learned about her fundraising through secondhand sources. As I indicated, this issue is not a major one, but it helped foster my skepticism.

2) ... when Sloane "outs" Esme on national television, with the latter in the audience. To be sure, this action fits her hard-nosed, take-no-prisoners, cutthroat mentality (rare in a female protagonist), and its consequences greatly increase Sloane's guilt and her desire to expose congressional corruption once and for all while extricating herself from Washington's web. But the prospect of something like that ever happening, in those circumstances, is a huge reach. A more realistic action would have been for Sloane to leak Esme's story to some media outlet or a sympathetic blogger—such a development would have been plausible while serving the same narrative function, even if it would not have created as dramatic of a scene or necessarily led to as much drama later in the movie.

3) ... when Esme's life is rescued by a crack shot with a conceal-carry permit. This narrative development felt so contrived that it briefly took me out of the film a bit. First, while a long-held fantasy of pro-gun advocates, this scenario is extremely unrealistic. Sure, it is not impossible, but how many potential murders or violent crimes have actually been snuffed out by some random stranger who just happened to be armed? A more realistic scenario, I would argue, is what happens in the Golden Globe-nominated Hell or High Water from earlier this year, a film that basically mocks the fantasy in deadpan fashion.

Second, given the overall narrative context, the incident plays almost like a cable news gun control debate, as if the filmmakers wanted to give a nod to the "other side." On the surface, this imperative is noble—hey, maybe the opposition has a point—but it feels very inorganic to me. I would draw an analogy to Eye in the Sky, from earlier this year, a film that I saw twice. It has some excellent aspects, but what holds the movie back from full-fledged "good" status in my view is that it feels like a tutorial, as if the filmmakers were trying to educate the viewer on the various points of debate regarding drone warfare rather than telling a story more organically and allowing the questions and controversies to emerge naturally. In Miss Sloane, the filmmakers could have jeopardized Esme's life and exposed the consequences of Liz's reckless decision without contriving this added layer where a savior is also a crack shot who becomes a hero to the pro-gun movement. Sure, the development fits a narrative purpose—as you wrote, "everything is setup and tracked well," and in this case, the unexpected development helps fuel gun advocacy groups as public favor for the gun-control bill diminishes along with senatorial support. The idea that matters could actually unfold and connect that "neatly," though, is what renders the development and the chain of events preposterous for me. The scenario has a comic book feel in my view—an adult political comic, to be sure—but something that does not quite complement a film that is more or less realistic in tone and ambition.

In other words, although the movie's tone is consistent, the narrative does not always match the tone—it is too outlandish, structurally, at times. And what is rational is not always logical, or vice versa—perhaps that is the best way that I can put it, even if the phrase sounds like a Yogi Berra non sequitur or paradox. As you sort of indicated, the narrative developments are "neat"—they technically "add up"—but they could never add up so neatly in real life. And, yes, Miss Sloane is a fictional film, after all, but it attempts to strike a hardened, realistic posture.

4) ... the way that everything unfolds at the end, where Sloane had bugged the senator's vehicle, offers the grand "surprise" revelation, and gives the serial number to members of the press, who then instantly confirm matters on their laptops. Again, the scenario is something out of a comic book—an adult political comic, but a comic book just the same. And if Miss Sloane had constituted a tongue-in-cheek movie, along the lines of a political satire such as Warren Beatty's Bulworth (1998), that aspect might have been fine. But I do not feel that Miss Sloane is quite that movie—it strives for intimacy and for genuine, complicated humanity, and it achieves those elements in Jessica Chastain's performance. So the comic book plot developments interfere with, or distract from, the movie's strengths; if you see my posts about The Accountant, whose release overlapped with Miss Sloane, I feel similarly about that film. (Ultimately, I believe that Miss Sloane is somewhat better, because at least its narrative construction is tighter and the focus on character is more intense and persistent.)

To be sure, there are elements of the climactic scene that I love—the bravery and bravura of Sloane's rhetorical performance, overcoming her vulnerability in steely fashion; the redemption, retribution, and catharsis that she achieves; Senator Sterling's comeuppance and Sloane's almost incontestable revelation that for as much as the media and the public demonize lobbyists, the congressmen who allow themselves to basically be bribed in order to win reelection constitute the real problem and the true villains. And the entrance and testimony of the male escort—his relationship with Sloane represents perhaps the film's most unexpected and ironic aspect—is both suspenseful and gratifying, as he surprisingly protects Sloane by finding values that are more important than sheer candor—the right to privacy, dignity, and human intimacy, and ultimately a broader ethic of integrity. These points are rather profound, and the fact that the movie makes them without exposition truly enhances the scene. And the way that it unfolds is genuine and touching without being sentimental, in accordance with the movie's best aspects. Most of all, perhaps, it is nuanced. Unfortunately, I would not say the same about those other plot points.

I mentioned The Accountant and bracketed it with Miss Sloane to some extent. Another overlapping release that I would cite, but in opposition, is Allied, directed by Robert Zemeckis. That film, too, features a conspiratorial aspect, but unlike The Accountant and Miss Sloane, it does not try to add layer upon layer as the narrative progresses, making all kinds of connections so that everything "clicks." Instead, Allied offers the basic conspiracy and then keeps the narrative convolutions to a minimum, allowing for a haunting and uncluttered study in human uncertainty—simple yet far from simplistic. Combined with the movie's visual beauty and extraordinary compositions, the result is a "very good" film in my opinion, one of the year's best.

But with regard to Miss Sloane, I appreciate that the plotting worked better for you—I always appreciate thoughtful perspectives from folks who hold certain films in higher esteem than myself, as they grant me a broader feel for how people respond to certain dynamics.

reply share

add reply

formatting help