The Ides of March: Grade C

C

The Ides of March (2011)

Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Evan Rachel Wood, Marissa Tomei, Jeffrey Wright. Co-writer and Director George Clooney.

This movie is a huge disappointment, because I am a sucker for political movies. I should have been prepared when I saw that long list of stars, never a good sign. The biggest failure is the poor writing, and after that, the surprisingly poor acting (with a couple of small exceptions).

First the writing. This is supposed to be a story of ideas, political ideas. We are exposed to the inner workings of a presidential campaign. Governor Morris (Clooney) is the Democratic candidate and his two top campaign administrators are Stephen (Gosling) and Paul (Hoffman). Stephen is actually the main character. He is portrayed as a brilliant, successful campaign organizer, totally loyal, who nevertheless has an affair with one of the campaign interns (Wood).

But the real trouble starts when the campaign chief from the rival camp (Giamatti) invites him to come over to the other side. Stephen agrees to a meeting, rejects the offer, and tells Paul, the campaign strategist about it. Paul fires Stephen on the spot for disoloyalty. Stephen is desperate to maintain his political life and finds a dirty, nasty way back into the inner circle, at cost to his innocence and integrity.

The trouble is, none of those moves is convincing. The Stephen character would never have taken that meeting and would not do any of what he does afterward. The intern Wood would never do what she does, or say what she says, given her circumstances. In the dramatic showdown scene, despite a big display of reasoning, the governor fails to reason correctly and miscalculates. And on and on. If the characters don’t make sense, and the story line doesn’t make sense, then what do you have in a movie of ideas? Not much. I get the strong feeling this story was written by a committee. There is no insight to be had and nothing to be learned from it.

Then there is the acting, uniformly deadly. How is that possible from such great stars? It can only be chalked up to poor directing. There are a few sparkles, as when Giamatti gives a heated speech to Gosling in a smoke-filled back room. But that’s his only moment. Tomei is consistently strong, and even though she has a small role, she acts her heart out. Clooney is unbelievably wooden. Rachel Evan Wood? Ow!

About the only positive thing I could say about the movie is that it presents two meta-stories (not in the movie itself). One is disappointment about American politics. It seems to say, all politics is dirty politics, and even if you have a seemingly “ideal” candidate (like Obama), you learn the reality is the same cynical B.S. as always. The second implicit theme is that the news media control the democratic process, because, ultimately, the voters are stupid. Politicians must direct their every thought and action toward media coverage for that reason.

They should have made either of those movies.

Capitalism: A Love Story: Grade D

D
Capitalism: A Love Story
Michael Moore; Writer and director Michael Moore.

This latest offering from serial documentarian Moore considers the political and economic machinations that led to the financial collapse of 2008. He purports to be shocked and outraged that corporations are in business ONLY to make money, and that politicians are corrupt and hypocritical. Well, maybe those facts will be news to some people just recently arrived to America. Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was head of Goldman Sachs just before its government bailout? Who knew? Not Moore, apparently.

As for his explanation of capitalism, he is way out of his depth. He obviously has little education in economics. His “people before profits” message is shrill and totally one-sided. The film meanders from one diatribe to the next with without focus or purpose. On the plus side, Moore skillfully interweaves archival footage of business and political figures with contemporary interviews, often humorously, to highlight hypocrisy; and he excels as always in editing his interviews to make his subjects look stupid, malevolent or melodramatically heroic. So his considerable craft is evident. But as for content, there just isn’t any.

In The Loop: Grade C

C
In the Loop (2009)

Peter Capaldi, Tom Hollander, Gina McKee, Mimi Kennedy, James Gandolfini, Chris Addison, Anna Chlumsky; Director Armando Iannucci.

This British comedy is like The Office set in Number 10 Downing Street instead of in a commercial establishment . Maybe a cross between The Office and the BBC series, Yes, Minister is a good description. Clueless mid-level managers frenetically strut their self-importance, vie for ephemeral recognition, lord it over their staff, who are by turn ambitious, idealistic, naive, and cynical. No characters are developed. The style is not the mockumentary style of The Office but the sitcom feel is unmistakable. It is a movie adaptation of a television series (which I’ve never seen), and that’s how it plays.

The basic story is that the U.S. President and the British Prime Minister are set on invading Iraq, and within the government staff on both sides of the Atlantic there are factions supportive of that decision and those ardently opposed. Facts are manipulated, reports are doctored, committee meetings are held in secret, and other shenanigans are executed as each faction tries to facilitate or obstruct the political trend. That’s all good political fodder, but this is a comedy, not a serious movie about the decision to go to war.

As a comedy, it is successful, especially if you like British humor. However, any sitcom is only amusing for 20 minutes, so 90 minutes of clever one-liners, creative profanity, snappy comebacks, snide remarks, and witty zingers wears you down. Real people are not that funny, so the verbal deluge of wit is a writerly conceit that gets in the way of the story, except the story is only perfunctory, and I lost track of it, characters’ motivations, and even their names. Despite the film's failings however, there are laughs to be had.

W. Grade C

C
W. (2008)
Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton. Director Oliver Stone.

The impressions were the most fun in this docudrama biography of George W. Bush. Brolin, as GW Bush, had the voice and gestures down cold. I totally believed him. Condi Rice was near perfect (Newton) and so was Dick Cheney (Dreyfuss). Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) was the least convincing, not only because the look was not close, but the speech and gestures weren’t either, nor was the character’s persona (compared to what we saw in public). One couldn’t expect 100% on the impersonation front, but the result was highly variable.

Beyond interesting impersonations though, what was the point of this movie? It documented, with restraint and respect, Bush’s early wild years of alcoholism, aimlessness and dissipation, and his rise to the presidency. But we never got a sense of who he was. Why was he wild and self-destructive? Was he jealous of brother Jeb? Oppressed by Poppy Bush? These were suggested in the dialog but there was nothing revealed through the character’s behavior. To show who a character is, you put him in the vise grip of a situation and watch how he reacts and that’s how you know who he is. But this movie didn’t do that, and I did not come away from it thinking I had any more insight into W. than before. One day we see him at an AA meeting, but we don’t know why he is there. There was a suggestion that he had a really bad hangover and that’s what made him change, but that hardly seems a compelling explanation.

One day he collapsed while jogging and looked up at the treetops, and after that he became a born-again Christian? What? So it is throughout the movie. He marries Laura. Why? No clue. He decides to run for congress, then Governor. Why? Don’t know. Things happen, and they are shown. But nothing is explained. The same is true for the other players, such as Powell. He objects and is even sullen during the discussion of WMD’s in Iraq, but next we see him at the UN giving his famous false PowerPoint. Why? No explanation is suggested.

There is also little dramatic tension in the film, and not just because we know how everything turns out. This script doesn’t know if it is a documentary or a drama and it comes up neither. There is plenty of intrinsic drama in the GW Bush story, but it is not captured. Even if Bush was not smart enough, or not introspective enough to understand the conflicts inherent in his personal and public life, the filmmaker surely should have been. Since there is no story and no character development, all the acting talent is focused on doing impressions, and some are better than others.

An American Carol: Grade D

D
An American Carol (2008)
Kevin P. Farley, Kelsey Grammer, Leslie Nielsen, with appearances by Bill O’Reilly, Dennis Hopper, John Voight. Co-writer and director David Zuckoff.

I rented this movie because I thought it would be a Leslie Nielsen Airplane-esque spoof of left wing politics, especially the Michael Moore variety. Instead, it is a one-theme political diatribe of the form, “Michael Moore hates America!” The assumption is that any criticism of any part of American government makes one a traitor working for the country’s enemies. But the main problem is that the movie is not funny. Maybe funny is not something that the right does.

There are two or three scenes of inspired silliness, such as the opening, when the terrorist leader calls for one of his men, “Mohammed! Come here!” and 15 guys appear from behind rocks and rush to him. They play that joke out for two or three more minutes. That is the real Leslie Nielsen silliness I love. Another inspired segment has Dennis Hopper as a judge blasting his shotgun at ACLU zombies who have invaded his courtroom. Hopper was terrific in that role. Kelsey Grammer was outstanding as General George Patton, a ghost who escorts Farley as Michael Malone across time and space, per “It’s a Wonderful Life,” to see what would have happened if war were banned as left-wing liberals insist. We see that Malone would now be a slaveowner because the Civil War was not fought and “Victoria’s Secret” had become “Victoria’s Burka.” Is that funny? I see only heavy handed didactics.

Liberal politics certainly is ripe for a satire, but this isn’t it.

Recount: Grade A

A
Recount (2008)
Kevin Spacey, Laura Dern, Denis Leary, Tom Wilkinson, Ed Begley Jr, John Hurt, Bob Balaban.
Director Jay Roach

This HBO docudrama tells the story of the 2000 US presidential election, in which the vote was so close that the country did not know who won for 35 days until finally the Supreme Court simply declared Bush the winner. Spacey is head of the Gore campaign and Leary, in a notable performance, is his foul-mouthed technician. On the Republican side, Tom Wilkinson absolutely channels James Baker. Laura Dern is fantastic as Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Bush and Gore are portrayed only in glimpses, but seen on contemporary television snippets. The film is remarkably tense, considering that we know the story by heart and there is no mystery about how it turned out. I would put it right up there with All The President’s Men as one of the great historical political thrillers.

Is it accurate and fair? DVD extras, which include interviews with some of the principals, suggest that the filmmakers took great care to assure that the facts were correct, and they seemed so by my memory. However characters come from the art of filmmaking, and though based on the facts, they definitely make the Democrats the good guys and victims. Spacey is the noble protagonist, Dern/Harris is a buffoon, and Wilkinson/Baker is an unprincipled Machiavelli. However, the vote count always was within the margin of error so the outcome of the race was, and always will be, genuinely indeterminate. I came away feeling that the Republicans did not really “steal” the election. Despite all the dirty tricks and hard feelings, the resolution had to be political, as there was no other possibility. In that sense, the film is laudably educational.

Charlie Wilson’s War: Grade A

A
Charlie Wilson’s War (2007)
Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Julia Roberts, Amy Adams, Ned Beatty. Director Mike Nichols.

Hanks is Charlie Wilson, a real Texas congressman in the 1980’s who sat on several important committees and was able to surreptitiously get funding to supply weapons to Muhadjadeen in Afghanistan who were fighting off the Russian invasion of 1980. Hoffman is a CIA analyst whose goal is to “kill Russians” and he facilitates Wilson’s scheme. Roberts is a wealthy, Christian, anti-communist Texas socialite (and sometimes dalliance for Wilson), who throws fund-raisers so Wilson can get re-elected and carry out the plan. The plan was enormously expensive but the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan in 1988. As the movie ends, Wilson cannot get funding to rebuild the country. Hoffman reports that the victorious, well-armed Afghan chieftains are moving to Kabul to take over the government, but nobody in congress cares about Afghanistan any more, if they ever did.

The movie is more enjoyable if you know recent history in the Middle East. That also lets you in on many of the wicked jokes. But even if you don’t know history, this movie could almost be called a comedy because the script is so consistently clever and witty. Hanks delivers his best acting in a complex, nuanced role. Hoffman is fantastic and I wanted to seem more of him, but it wasn’t his story. Roberts was cute and funny in her Texas bouffant wig.

It’s a funny and serious story at the same time. If there is a message, it does not try to hit you over the head like Lions for Lambs did but presents a subtle anti-war conclusion, because despite the enormous cost and effort, what was really achieved? If the Russians had prevailed in Afghanistan, it would have been for only 10 years until the empire broke up anyway. Did the war drain their treasury and contribute to the break-up? Maybe so. Maybe we should take a lesson from that in our own time.

Lions for Lambs: Grade D

D
Lions for Lambs (2007)
Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise. Director Robert Redford.

This anti-war movie is a diatribe urging young people to get involved in politics to oppose the war (in Iraq), which is portrayed as ill-conceived, unsuccessful, and morally illegitimate. Cruise is a US senator who has a new plan to win the war by increased military action. He is portrayed as if he were Commander in Chief, when really, all a senator can do is authorize or cut off funding for a war, but this is the movie’s way to avoid direct criticism of the president. The senator releases news of new military action to reporter Streep. They have a snappy dialog about the legitimacy of the war, its history, aims, and processes, but it just rehashes familiar arguments. Lefty Streep wants the Republican senator to take responsibility for disastrous foreign policy but he changes the subject to argue an unrelated point. He wants to talk about the future, not "dwell" on the past. These attitudes and rhetorical strategies fairly represent today’s political discourse, making the senator look either stupid or dishonest, but surely self-blind.

Redford is an unlikely political science professor who chastises his star student for apathetically choosing personal ambition over political engagement. It is the "message” of the movie, that young people need to get involved, but it is a simplistic view delivered with deadening Redfordian pomposity. The professor tells of two other students who got involved by enlisting in the army. That option is portrayed ambiguously. He criticizes it, but the soldiers themselves justify it. Those soldiers end up in Afghanistan, in a set of dark-blue-filtered scenes that is so muddy and dim you can’t even make out their faces. I think that was done to disguise the unconvincing Styrofoam rocks and powdered snow. With plenty of noisy but meaningless gunfire, this segment of the movie is to remind us that if you go into the Service, you could be killed. Better you should lick envelopes at campaign headquarters.

The well-worn arguments in this movie are stated, not portrayed in a story that might bring them to life. I happen to agree completely with the sentiments and attitudes expressed but that doesn’t make it a good movie. Acting by Streep is worth watching, but that’s about all. Directing is adequate for the talking heads but dreadful for the ambushed soldiers. I think the filmmakers failed to get sufficiently engaged themselves and settled for easy speechifying, frittering away a powerhouse cast.

Lust, Caution: Grade A

A
Lust, Caution (2007)
Wei Tang, Tony Leung. Director Ang Lee. (Chinese, subtitled).

Wei Tang lights up the screen in this visually gorgeous historical drama set in Shanghai in the late 1930’s. The Japanese have invaded China and Leung is a collaborator rounding up anti-Japanese resisters. Tang’s college theater group makes it their patriotic duty to assassinate him. Tang insinuates herself into his wife’s mah-jongg group then seduces him, setting him up for the kill. In their increasingly passionate relationship she sacrifices her body and her soul to gain his trust. There is no reason why the resistance cell could not just pop him while he walks down the street. The idea that he needs to be seduced is an arbitrary story device.

There are a couple of attractively photographed and very steamy sex scenes that border on the gratuitous, but could suggest her mind moving from murder to lust to love. I didn’t buy it. Tang gives an impassioned speech to her fellow assassins about how she despises the guy and is making this huge sacrifice of her mind and body for the cause. Was she lying to them? I thought not. At the key moment in the movie a big diamond clouds her mind and she makes a choice that betrays everything. Dramatic, but again, I didn’t buy it. That’s not her character. So even though tension is maintained between the title nouns, lust and caution, the plot line is anemic and inconsistent with the protagonist’s psychology. But it is a different time and a different culture, so who knows, really?

Another criticism is that every costume, car windshield, bicycle, storefront and sidewalk is perfect, clean, and brand new, not a speck of dirt, dust, or time-worn age anywhere. There are no flowing gutters, no street beggars. Lots of cigarettes but no ashtrays. I’m sure it was artistic choice, perhaps to make the sex scenes seem more aesthetic than sex is. But once you accept the abstract visual style, you can appreciate that Tang’s face is stunning, the costumes are stunning, the sets are stunning, the music is stunning. The movie is a feast for eyes and ears, so beautiful, you don’t need a plot.

Rendition: Grade A

A
Rendition (2007)
Omar Metwally, Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal, Moa Khouas, Zineb Oukach, Yigal Naor, Meryl Streep, Peter Sarsgaard, Alan Arkin. Director Gavin Hood.

This didactic movie describes the U.S. government practice of “rendition,” in which captured terrorist suspects can be transferred, without judicial process, to a prison outside the U.S. to be tortured. As the president and the secretary of state have repeatedly said, “America doesn’t do torture.” This movie shows how that may be literally true. CIA agent Gyllenhaal merely observes torture conducted by an Egyptian ally (Naor). An Egyptian man living in America (Metwally) has been captured, hooded and “rendered” to Egypt for torture on orders from hard-boiled CIA boss Streep. His wife, Witherspoon, appeals to her senator (Arkin) via his aide (Sarsgaard) for intervention but gets the “classified secrets” stonewall. In a completely separate story, a young Egyptian man (Khouas) becomes a suicide bomber when his brother is captured and tortured by Egyptian police.

The film is well-researched, well-made, and very well-acted, especially by Metwally and Naor. Streep speaks her acid lines with perfection. Sarsgaard gives a nuanced performance. Gyllenhaal’s character is under-written, so there’s not much for him to do, but his silent head nods are as good acting as you’ll see anywhere. Reese Witherspoon gives an amazing dramatic performance. Directing is deft, cinematography fully convincing, and the music is outstanding. It’s a first class movie all around, except…

There are two problems. One is that the time sequencing of the two stories is so chopped up that it is very close to being incomprehensible. It took me an hour to realize there were two separate stories, and until the three-quarters mark to realize that most of what I had seen had been flashback. The ending scenes don’t make a lot of sense unless you have been taking notes on a yellow pad. Two stories were not needed. The main rendition story would have been more than enough. Whether this was botched editing or poor planning from the beginning, the disjoint timeline torpedoes both stories.

Extra-cinematic criticism is inevitable for this politically and morally sensitive story. The message is clear: the U.S. does not obey its own or international laws, tortures people, and lies about it. Lip service is given to the countervailing argument that we should thank the government for protecting us from terrorists by whatever means prudent. It would have been a better movie if Metwally’s character had been more ambiguous, not an innocent victim of an inhuman, racist, immoral government. It is a “Shame on you, America” message, and though very well made, its political point is bound to alienate many.

Savior's Square: Grade B

B

Savior’s Square (2006)

Jowita Miondlikowska, Arkadiusz Janicze; Directors: Joanna Kos (also wrote), Krzysztof Krauze. (Polish, subtitled)

A young couple and their two young boys, in contemporary Poland visit their new home, a condo still under construction in a new development called Savior’s Square. When the man goes to talk to the foreman about some detail, he learns that all work on the development has stopped, the builder is bankrupt, the deposit paid (the whole price) vanished. The family is devastated, since they already sold their apartment to make the condo payment, so they have to move in with his mother, a humiliation and an extreme imposition for the mother. In the very close quarters of her apartment tempers flare often. The husband has to demand that the wife give up her Visa card; she cannot find work because of the child care problem. The mother nags. There is a meeting of all the defrauded condo buyers but they learn there is nothing they can do, no money to be recovered, nobody to sue.

This domestic tragedy is low key, slow moving, and actually a bit boring, until you catch on to the idea that it is not really about this family’s troubles at all. The family represents the state of Polish society since the end of communism, when party cronies hijacked the national wealth in bogus privatizations, leaving the ordinary people impoverished and bringing the economy to a stop. Sure they have political freedom now, but what good is that if you have to live with your mother and can’t afford food? The family’s children are consistently presented as burdens, liabilities. They are never shown as people with futures, because the truth is, they have no future, nor do the citizens of Poland. Maybe I read too much in, but I really started to enjoy the movie after I understood what it was about. As a bonus, you get to see a slice of ordinary life in contemporary Poland and to sample the language. Throw in good acting and thoughtful cinematography, and you have a strong movie that sneaks up on you.

12:08 East of Bucharest: Grade A

A
12:08 East of Bucharest (2006)
Mircea Andreescu, Teodor Corban, Ion Sapdaru. Writer-Director Corneliu Porumboiu. Romanian (subtitled).

It seems clear that this film was made for domestic consumption in Romania. It’s hard to imagine it would appeal to an American audience, yet inexplicably, I enjoyed it tremendously. In a contemporary provincial town, a dreary television talk show interviews two locals, asking them where they were and what they were doing on that fateful day in 1989 when communism fell in Romania and dictator Ceausescu fled. The two men interviewed say they were out in the town square protesting the government and calling for its overthrow. But the interviewer presses them for details: were they protesting before 12:08 pm when the dictator fled, or were they celebrating after that time, when it was safe? In other words, were they really part of the revolution or just observers of it? The style of the questions and answers start to take the shape of an interrogation by the secret police, focusing obsessively on tiny details. The interviewees get defensive, angry, depressed, and defeated. In the background is a lifeless flat mural of the empty, barren town square in front of a concrete hulk of a government building. There are comments about whether the clock in the tower ever was accurate, a fine metaphor for life under communism. Callers-in to the show are hostile, dismissive, or contradicting of the interviewees. One claims life was better before the revolution. One is now a rich factory owner, but formerly was with the secret police, as the interviewees well know. He intimidates the interviewer about “libelous claims.” We start to understand the larger question of whether there really was a revolution at all for the ordinary people. What is different now? They still struggle to pay their debts and put bread on the table. It is a rich metaphorical film, reminiscent of a story by George Orwell, and one senses that it still touches raw nerves in Romania today. It also gives a rare look into provincial life there. I give the movie an ‘A’ because I enjoyed it so much, but it is so subtle that I wouldn’t recommend it to the average American movie watcher.

Civic Duty: Grade D

D

Civic Duty (2006)

Peter Krause, Khaled Abol Naga, Kari Machett, Richard Schiff. Director Jeff Renfroe.

I would call this government propaganda but it isn’t, really. For that, the government must control both the source and the message. Here, I think the filmmakers were telling their own story, even though it accepts uncritically the government’s fear-mongering message that there is a terrorist under every bed. Structurally, the movie is like another bad remake of Hitchcock’s Rear Window. An unemployed accountant (Krause) spies a “middle-eastern” fellow (Naga) in the apartment next door, doing “odd” things like taking out garbage in the middle of the night and receiving boxes from other (“evil”) dark-skinned people with facial hair. All the while, government propaganda does play incessantly on the TV “news” shortly after the 9-11 attacks, urging citizen vigilance. Kraus becomes convinced that the neighbor is plotting a terrorist act and his beliefs and actions flow rapidly into a hostage standoff that invokes some torture imagery. He suffers a mental breakdown which “explains” his irrational reasoning and vigilante mentality, but maybe he is not really nuts, only patriotic. We should be not only the eyes and ears of antiterrorism, as the president says on TV, but also, apparently, the executioners. Notably bad, way too loud orchestral music tries to create suspense where there is none, an admission of story failure. There is no character development or acting to speak of, though I do like Krause. He has more potential than this. I won’t give away the ending except to say that it is either cynical and dishonest, or disturbingly ignorant. I don’t mind movies with a message I disagree with, but they have to offer some artistic value or at least some ideas more robust than racism and unthinking propaganda.

Bobby: Grade D

D

Bobby (2006)

Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Fishburne, Sharon Stone, Demi Moore, William Macy, many others. Written and Directed by Emilio Estevez.

This is not a movie about Bobby Kennedy. It is about two dozen ordinary people who were in the hotel where he was shot in 1968. Some short archival clips show him making speeches, adding authenticity to the setting, but there is no exploration of the man, his policies or achievements. It is not a political movie. The two dozen "little people" are played by a huge cast of stars, which implies the Estevez-Sheen family is very well connected in Hollywood, because the roles are all light throwaways and what acting is present is suffocated by the clunky dialog and stereotyped characters. Even Hopkins gasps for air. There is no dramatic tension. We know Kennedy gets shot, and that is dramatized in the last moments, but the preceding hour and a half is an exercise in banality, people worrying about their shoes or the Dodgers. The Vietnam war is vaguely in the background. I give credit for meticulous period sets and costumes, although everything is so new and shiny they are not entirely convincing. Period music burbling in the background is a fine tease (I don’t think I have heard Donovan since 1968). But the script is appallingly mundane and full of anachronisms (Operators did not say “How may I direct your call?” in 1968, and nobody said “Have a nice day.”) If the nostalgia is not even right, what is left? If you did not live through that period, I cannot imagine what possible interest this movie would offer.

Shut Up and Sing: Grade B

B

Shut Up and Sing

The Dixie Chicks (Natalie Maines, Emily Robison, Martie McGuire).

This is a documentary of the rise and fall and rise of country music act, The Dixie Chicks, starting from the 2003 anti-war incident in which Natalie announced that she was ashamed that George Bush was from her home state of Texas. As is well-known, conservative groups then mounted a campaign against the group, boycotting their records and the radio stations that played them. Most country stations (owned by only a few giant corporations), stopped playing their records. The movie shows the girls discussing their dismay and anxiety, and trying to rebuild their career after this political victimization. The film ends before their triumphant 2007 best album Emmy. It is a moving personal story, a brief look behind the scenes at the group and the industry, and it has a nice free speech theme. The women are inviting and likeable and the music is good. Overall, however, there is little substance. This was not really a free speech constitutional issue. Natalie first tries to minimize her comment as a joke or “misstatement”, but then later decides it is a righteous issue. None of the women seems to realize that the whole incident had nothing to do with them, but that they were pawns in the battle between the reds and the blues in American culture. We don’t learn too much about the music industry, although there are some tantalizing clues. One gets the impression that country music fans and their conservative radio stations deserve each other. The fact that this documentary exists at all indicates some extremely shrewd marketing people in there somewhere. We don’t learn much about the women themselves. They have babies and husbands, and that’s wonderful, but there is very little biographical information. We have no idea where Natalie came from or who she is. We really don’t even know what the women believe. I’m sure I could look all this up, but the point is, the documentary is superficial. I can imagine in the future there might be a definitive bio-pic on the Chicks. This isn’t it. Still, as an annotation of a curious episode in American pop culture, it is a watchable film.