Rating (1 to 10) : 6
Summary: Ostensibly about a high school election gone amok, it really is a wicked satire of the candidates of the 1992 election.
This movie makes the statement that politics at school is a microcosm of politics in the real world. In either, you always get three types of candidates. The first is an overachiever wants to get elected, not to serve but because he views being elected as an award. The second is someone who was motivated to run by others with ulterior motives; he really never had a passion to run for office. The third type is the anti-establishment rebel who wants to make a statement against the establishment.
In this movie, these hypothetical candidates all are exemplified in the election at Carver High, the setting of the story, and by extension, represent the presidential candidates of the ’92 election. The overachieving candidate, represented by Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer in “Pleasantville”), is a not so implicit dig at Bill Clinton. She’s bright, energetic, and has the inner drive to work hard to achieve her goals. But like Clinton, Tracy views the winning the presidency as a prize that will enhance his image; she is running for the office because it is something worth winning. Like Clinton, she cares little for those who have entrusted their votes to her.
Paul Metzler (Chris Klein), the hesitant candidate, seems like a depiction of George Bush pere, although I think it’s more fitting of Michael Huffington, a candidate for the CA senatorial seat in 1994. He is a genuine person with a good heart who is not so bright and not very motivated to run for office. Other people, who have their reasons for wanting Paul to run, persuaded him to seek office. It comes at a perfect time for Paul because he is feeling a void in his life. Born into affluence and coasting along in an easy life, Paul, like Bush and Huffington, assumes running for office is a higher calling that will give his life some purpose. Never mind that he really doesn’t know what he will do with the office after he gets elected.
The anti-establishment candidate is Tammy Metzler, Paul’s sister, an uncharismatic person who knows she can’t win but does so anyway to shake up the establishment. She, among all the candidates, energizes the voters the best by feeding on their disdain for the system and by reflecting the cynical electorate to the point of nihilism. But her ulterior motive is to hurt Paul’s candidacy and thus Tammy seems like a caricature of Ross Perot (although Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader seems a better fit).
And in all this is the lead character, Jim McAllister (Matthew Broderick, Ferris Bueller from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”), who seems like a teacher really out to make a difference but also has questionable behavior and motives. He doesn’t like Tracy very much, not after Tracy had an affair with a fellow teacher (again, Tracy’s sexual liason mirroring Clinton’s immoral peccadilloes), a friend and colleague who was fired for improper conduct.
The movie has dialogue scenes interwoven with scenes with a narrative voice of one of the leading characters. You get a sense of their viewpoints on why they ran and what their perception of the election and their opponents is. The election gets somewhat out of hand, as Tracy tries to sabotage the other candidates. Her portrayal of her character is a top-notch mirror image of Clinton, someone relentless and willing to do things up to the line of legality to win. You can just see it in her face with a look of determination mixed with subdued hatred of her opponents. Reese Witherspoon uses more of her acting talent in this role, which is much more demanding than her roles in movies like “Legally Blonde” and “Little Nicky”.
The directors and writers took some time to impart on their three candidate characters the same mannerisms of Clinton, Bush, and Perot and these are best represented in a scene where all three candidates give their speeches before the gathered students at an assembly. The reluctant candidate Paul, not good at giving a speech, reads his off a paper in front of the students, never making eye contact with the audience and coming off uninspiring. Tracy gives a speech eerily reminiscent of Clinton circa ’92 when she includes mini-life stories of various people to describe problems, one of Clinton’s trademark. Tammy’s speech, insulting to the establishment and offering nothing but honesty, similar to Perot’s style, gets the most enthusiastic applause.
In the end, Tracy cheats her way to the top and gets away with it, reflecting Clinton’s behavior that was most often unseemly, unethical, and unchecked. Yet McAllister is the ultimate loser as he tries to throw the election to stop Tracy and gets caught; he becomes the victim in a common political act – getting stabbed by an unexpected source bent on avenging a very trivial slight (think Howard Baker). As Jim laments near the end, “What happens to a man when he loses everything? Everything he’s worked for? Everything he believes in?”
At first, I didn’t think much of this movie. But after watching it a few more times and reflecting on it, this dark comedy is somewhat of a political statement. Jim McAlister tries to teach his students the difference between morals and ethics yet doesn’t follow his own teachings as he behaves unethically even though he is a mostly moral person. Is this a reflection of us, the electorate, and our representatives in our republican government? Is this why we tolerate the types of candidates we get, people who haven’t matured to the level of statesmanship and are instead playing politics at a high-school level? That the purpose of winning office is to serve the greater good and not to use it as some prize for whatever personal reason?
Why you should or should not see this movie:
You should view this movie because it might inspire some thinking about our current political system. It is a good rental worth watching.
Jim McAllister (advising his colleague Dave Novotny on his relationship with Tracy): Dave, I’m just saying this as your friend. What you’re doing is really really wrong and you’ve gotta stop. The line you crossed is…it’s immoral and it’s illegal.”
Dave Novotny: “Jim, come one, I don’t need…I don’t need a lecture on ethics.”
Jim McAllister: “I’m not talking about ethics. I’m talking about morals.”
Dave Novotny (confused): “What’s the difference?”
Jim McAllister: “What happens to a man when he loses everything? Everything he’s worked for? Everything he believes in?”
Copyright by the Doomster 2004