Public and private.
When discussing politicians, those terms seem to have become synonymous with each other since my generation has been growing up. It says a lot when we mostly associate political figures such as Bill Clinton less with his political stances and more with his public persona (playing saxophone on “The Arsenio Hall Show,” his White House scandal, etc.) because, at the time, that’s all we ever heard about him. We just expect to know way too much about our politicians nowadays, especially with how connected our lives have become due to social media. Politics-wise, it’s an odd time to live in currently so when it comes to a period piece about the burgeoning relationship with politics and media that ultimately led to where we are now, there’s a fascinating angle to it when you’ve personally always known about that relationship for your entire life. That’s where Jason Reitman’s “The Front Runner” comes into the conversation.
The year is 1988. Colorado Senator Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) is the frontrunner to be the next President of the United States. However, if you know history, you know that that isn’t the case. In fact, the film follows Hart’s campaign during the three weeks prior to the primaries, leading to a scandal that was enough to derail his entire campaign despite the lead. What seems to be a classic case of infidelity actually turns into a surprising dissection involving the grey areas of politics, journalism, and the people that inhabit both sides.
While the film doesn’t flawlessly handle those grey areas, it definitely satisfies with its directing. Jason Reitman is a director I’ve liked for a very long time who has a really solid filmography. Even his weaker films are still interesting so while this wasn’t the highest on my list of films I wanted to see this Thanksgiving, “The Front Runner” became increasingly better once I saw Reitman bring his A-game to the narrative. I feel the same way towards the camerawork as it was better than it needed to be, committing to some fancy moves without ever distracting the audience from the narrative. It also helps that the film looks period authentic with a certain grain to the picture and a set and costume design that perfectly captures the late 80’s without feeling fake or overbearing.
My praises don’t stop there. The script for the film is incredibly strong, creating some impressive character moments that hit the landing every time. Even secondary characters to the film (such as Molly Ephraim’s Irene Kelly and Sara Paxton’s Donna Rice) have their moment to shine, showing the dedication the writers had for giving even the characters with a small amount of importance more dimension than probably other writers would. That goes double for the bigger characters in the film. Hugh Jackman does a fantastic job embodying what makes Gary Hart such an interesting political figure, Vera Farmiga is great even in a smaller than usual role for herself as Lee Hart, and J.K. Simmons’ Bill Dixon is a constant reminder as to why Simmons is such a phenomenal actor. While there are way too many characters for a film just under two hours, this is a rare situation for me where I legitimately enjoyed every performance in the film.
That brings me to possibly the biggest problem I had with the film: its dissection of the grey areas that inhabit politics and journalism. The film constantly challenges the morality of both camps through Gary Hart, two journalists (one from The Washington Post and the other from The Miami Herald), Irene Kelly, and the list goes on. Gary Hart is a man who believes that his political career is what truly matters for his presidential race, not his rocky home life or marriage or possible extramarital affairs. The journalists say otherwise, trying to find their voice in a changing world that is more interested in what might be the superficial elements of a political figure than the bigger picture. Then you have Irene Kelly, a secondary character that has a bit of her own personal crisis as she comes face-to-face with the woman that might destroy not only Gary’s chance as president but also the job she loves so much.
That paragraph alone is condensing so much of what the film is trying to do. It’s not a typical piece about a man with power falling from grace due to his flimsy morals. This is a film that throws multiple questions into your head:
Does a politician’s personal life really matter when it comes to how they work? How far is too far when covering a controversial story? Where does journalism end and “tabloid trash” begin? If you truly believe in what someone is fighting for, do you stick with them despite their mistakes? If you stay with them, how much does their mistake reflect on you? What truly matters in a situation like this?
Again, these are just a few of the questions that the film proposes to the audience. Unfortunately though, the film doesn’t conclude in a way that has satisfyingly answered all of the questions it creates. Since we’re still living a world dealing with some of those difficult quandaries, it makes sense that the film doesn’t have all the answers. Still, it’s a bit disappointing to see the film juggle so many ideas very well throughout the film only to fumble some of them when it nears the finish line.
As for minor problems with the film, like I said earlier in the review, the film has too many characters. Even though I dug all of the performances, there were too many times where I mixed up character names only to find out that I had been wrong for a decent chunk of the film. For example, when you have multiple characters named Billy, it might not be best to constantly refer to them all so quickly without a real moment of clarity to distinguish each one. Besides that though, there were moments where the audio design was off, especially in crowded environments. While it got better as the film progressed, there were a few times where the background noise nearly trumped the spoken dialogue. This even happens in the very first scene of the film which made me raise an eyebrow as to how that got past anybody when it almost hit levels of inaudibility in a movie theater setting.
With that said though, “The Front Runner” is a really good film that recontextualizes a lot of what we think about when discussing the relationship between the media and politics. I went into this expecting a solid film that just adds more to Hugh Jackman’s “post-Wolverine” filmography. What I got instead was a well-written and well-performed film that reminded me as to why I enjoy Jason Reitman’s work so much. It’s funny, heartbreaking, infuriating, impressive at times, and interesting to the point where I’m still pondering the questions it stuck in my mind. It’s just a shame that it came out at such a crowded and busy time in theaters because, while it didn’t fan my excitement for the other films coming out this week, it’s a more relevant film today than it really has any right to be.