Funny thing about this show -- I saw the people behind it on Charlie Rose, and they insisted that it had no political bias. For dramatic reasons, they took the perspective of the underdog (Gore campaign) they explained, but presented it down the middle.
That sounded wrong to me -- and I don't know why they would feel the need to say it -- but I couldn't say how wrong until I watched the thing. To say the least, it was heavily laden with political perspective. (I can't imagine too many folks would dispute this, but one never knows.)
By way of example, can you imagine the response in "progressive" circles if a Dem woman charged with overseeing election returns were attacked for her makeup and appearance a la Katherine Harris? Where's the umbarge that HRC supporters took for the Hillary-cackle-crowd?
Now, it's a historical fact that scorn was heaped on Harris by the D's, but the show didn't just show it -- the show joined and reveled in it, while ignoring more important historical facts (like all the post-election media recounts that showed Gore falling short.)
It's central theme is that the R's won because they only cared about winning, while the D's lost because they put country first. But what, exactly, did the D's refrain from doing to support this narrative? They went to the highest court they thought would favor them, where they won, and then lost at the next one up. Too bad, so sad, but where's the moral superiority?
Not coincidentally, the show was also strangely bland, I thought, given the inherent drama of what it portrayed (and the rave reviews). The lack of self-awareness that makes someone blind to their own bias seldom comes coupled with a gift for entertaining others, I suppose.
Tom Watson
· 1 year ago
I enjoyed Recount quite a bit - terrific cast, great location work, nice dialogue too. Sure it was unkind to Katherine Harris, but I think the film presented her more favorably than the media at the time. At least here, she's kind of a clueless minor apparatchik in way over head as opposed to a conniving tiger lady. And Laura Dern frankly looked pretty much just like her.
I disagree, TK, with your take on the central thesis - indeed, the film rejects the "for the good of the country" rationalization of Gore and his weaker lieutenants while glorifying those who didn't want to quit, the fighters on the Democratic side. It's not kind to Al Gore at all, not to Bill Daley or Warren Christopher. It savages Joe Lieberman.
In contrast, it's more than fair to Jim Baker (considering it's very much a pro-Dem flick) giving him props for tenacity and strategy. Bush comes off now worse than Gore.
I did NOT find it bland, probably because I view it was a historic travesty and its recent memory reached and grabbed me by the throat.
Chuck Tryon
· 1 year ago
Tom W, I think you're right about the film's treatment of Harris. She received far worse from the press and, to my chagrin, many liberal bloggers who mistook criticizing her politics for making fun of her appearance.
And I think you're right that the film very clearly distances itself from Gore's "good of the country" rhetoric. The visuals there completely undercut any belief the Dems might have had about Gore's language in his film concession, and certainly our knowledge of how the last eight years have turned out should inform us of how hollow those words actually are.
I wonder if TK's "blandness" comment might have something to do with the film's relatively "invisible" visual style. There were, of course, some significant visual and aural flourishes (the costuming of the two parties' leaders; the ubiquity of TVs; the various board rooms and other settings where the two sides operated). The "blandness" of the film's look was in some sense necessary to the story.
Tom K
· 1 year ago
More than fair to Jim Baker? Well, since you felt (rightly) that such a statement required the qualifier "considering it's very much a pro Dem film", I guess you are agreeing with my point that the folks saying it had no political bias were either lying or (more likely in my view) comically blind to their own prejudices.
Not sure if or how the visuals affected my judgment of blandness. Consciously, I didn't think of it as a visual problem. More a lack of credible drama that often accompanies dramas populated by one- or two-dimensional characters.
albdamned
· 1 year ago
I watched Recount a few days ago. I also noticed "The Conversation" music. I googled "recount the conversation music" - and found your article. "The Conversation" is one of my faves and the music is unforgettable. I'm pretty sure it was the same music, but I haven't investigated further.
Chuck Tryon
· 1 year ago
I'm pretty convinced that it's the same music. I teach The Conversation twice a year in my Intro to Film classes, so I *should* know. That being said, my confidence in recognizing film scores is a bit dicey.
Tom K., I'd say that you're basically right--the film is clearly sympathetic to the Dems narratively and emotionally. I think it underplays that sympathy to some extent, but had Gore won Bush v. Gore, I think we would have had a much different movie.
Cheap Textbooks
· 8 months ago
I was also excited to see Recount because of his amazing cast: Kevin Spacey, Laura Dern, John Hurt, Tom Wilkinson and as i have hoped, Recount is enjoyable because of the all-around fantastic performances. Overall , i would rate it as 3/5.
dashford
· 6 months ago
Regarding the music: it *isn't* the same as that in The Conversation, but it's so similar as to resemble a variation on the same themes. Same register on the piano, same intervals between many of the notes, but just in a different order. (I played the DVDs of each back-to-back.)
If you're wondering, the orginal music for The Conversation is by David Shire and for Recount it's by Dave Grusin.
seo services
· 5 months ago
I think the music is almost same. Nice post. Will be waiting for the new ones.
All Comments
That sounded wrong to me -- and I don't know why they would feel the need to say it -- but I couldn't say how wrong until I watched the thing. To say the least, it was heavily laden with political perspective. (I can't imagine too many folks would dispute this, but one never knows.)
By way of example, can you imagine the response in "progressive" circles if a Dem woman charged with overseeing election returns were attacked for her makeup and appearance a la Katherine Harris? Where's the umbarge that HRC supporters took for the Hillary-cackle-crowd?
Now, it's a historical fact that scorn was heaped on Harris by the D's, but the show didn't just show it -- the show joined and reveled in it, while ignoring more important historical facts (like all the post-election media recounts that showed Gore falling short.)
It's central theme is that the R's won because they only cared about winning, while the D's lost because they put country first. But what, exactly, did the D's refrain from doing to support this narrative? They went to the highest court they thought would favor them, where they won, and then lost at the next one up. Too bad, so sad, but where's the moral superiority?
Not coincidentally, the show was also strangely bland, I thought, given the inherent drama of what it portrayed (and the rave reviews). The lack of self-awareness that makes someone blind to their own bias seldom comes coupled with a gift for entertaining others, I suppose.
I disagree, TK, with your take on the central thesis - indeed, the film rejects the "for the good of the country" rationalization of Gore and his weaker lieutenants while glorifying those who didn't want to quit, the fighters on the Democratic side. It's not kind to Al Gore at all, not to Bill Daley or Warren Christopher. It savages Joe Lieberman.
In contrast, it's more than fair to Jim Baker (considering it's very much a pro-Dem flick) giving him props for tenacity and strategy. Bush comes off now worse than Gore.
I did NOT find it bland, probably because I view it was a historic travesty and its recent memory reached and grabbed me by the throat.
And I think you're right that the film very clearly distances itself from Gore's "good of the country" rhetoric. The visuals there completely undercut any belief the Dems might have had about Gore's language in his film concession, and certainly our knowledge of how the last eight years have turned out should inform us of how hollow those words actually are.
I wonder if TK's "blandness" comment might have something to do with the film's relatively "invisible" visual style. There were, of course, some significant visual and aural flourishes (the costuming of the two parties' leaders; the ubiquity of TVs; the various board rooms and other settings where the two sides operated). The "blandness" of the film's look was in some sense necessary to the story.
Not sure if or how the visuals affected my judgment of blandness. Consciously, I didn't think of it as a visual problem. More a lack of credible drama that often accompanies dramas populated by one- or two-dimensional characters.
Tom K., I'd say that you're basically right--the film is clearly sympathetic to the Dems narratively and emotionally. I think it underplays that sympathy to some extent, but had Gore won Bush v. Gore, I think we would have had a much different movie.
If you're wondering, the orginal music for The Conversation is by David Shire and for Recount it's by Dave Grusin.