Election (1999)

election is nothing like those other two you munch

I'd be happy to discuss that with you, Whiney, but I'm busy searching for old ILB threads to revive so I can be all, "Baseball? Whatever."

http://bestjamaica.com/images/aloe-vera.jpg

Such a classic. One of the only movies that makes my skin crawl. New Criterion remaster looks fantastic.

total classic

I went to a special screening of Election last night, part of a series called Bechdel Tested that a local rep runs. The details, if you’re interested.

The introductory panel was good. The four women talked about their political careers--the film wasn’t discussed. That was limited to two of the organizers just before they introduced the panel. One of them clearly had major problems with the film: she talked about its casual treatment of rape, and warned that there were “male-gazey” parts. “Feel free to hiss and boo” (verbatim quote), she said, because “parts of it deserve to be hissed and booed” (paraphrase).

I had two reactions. As a fan of Election, I thought that taking such broad farce at face value was a little off-course--it’d be like getting all worked up about the treatment of Russians in Dr. Strangelove. The creepiest character, Dave, is a buffoon writ large: it’s impossible to miss that. I don’t know that there’s a single male character in the film, McAllister included/especially, who isn’t presented as an object of ridicule. (Maybe the one male student who does the first vote count is okay.) The film’s/director’s/writer’s sympathy is with, if anyone, Tammy Meltzer--and even she, in her quixotically romantic reveries, doesn’t escape un-ridiculed.

Put all that aside, though--good points for discussion, before or after the film. It was the invitation to boo or hiss that really agitated the filmgoer part of me. This is a film you’re hosting, and that people have paid $13 to see. With something like Election, older and very well known, the audience is probably going to consist of a few people who haven’t seen it, and a lot of people like me who are there because they have and they like it (with people who are primarily there for the event scattered across both groups). Booing and hissing, if there is any, that’s the kind of thing that could ruin the film for me.

There was a 10-minute break between the panel and the film, and as people milled about, I went up to the host and basically said exactly that. I was kind of nervous: began by saying it was a great panel, and then--one of the panelists had talked about how men are always voicing complaints to her that they would never direct at a man--assured her that I’d be saying exactly the same thing if she were a man. (Truthfully, I’d be much more inclined to complain to a man, because I was aware, and slowed down by, the realization that I was about to engage in that tiresome cliché that begins with an ‘m’ and ends with a ‘g.’ You can believe that or not.) She quietly responded that those were fair points. I wasn’t sure if she actually thought they were fair points or if she just wanted me to go back to my seat.

I didn’t necessarily feel all that great when I walked away, but once the film started, I was glad I spoke up. Sure enough--because some people are stupid, and if you tell them to do x, y, or z then they’ll do x, y, or z, especially if they think it’ll be met with approval from the people around them--there was booing and hissing here and there. Not nearly enough to matter, but anyone seeing it for the first time would have missed some dialogue. Some of the derision sounded a little confused, to say the least. My favourite was the scene where McAlister confronts Tracy on Dave’s firing. Every one of McAlister’s lines is countered and undermined by something much sharper and cutting from Tracy, ending with her threat of legal action from her mom’s lawyer. It was like, “Boohiss--wait a minute...Boohiss--wait a minute...Boohiss--wait a minute.” Or when the dreaded c-word showed up, but voiced by Tammy--a couple of not-very-hearty hisses. Is it actually Tammy saying that, or the male/director saying it by proxy? The people hissing sounded like they might have been right in the middle of sorting that question out. Good art is complicated.

There was a nice ovation for the film at the end. 7/10 on the ovation scale--not thundering, but very deserved, I’d say.

My god

christ

imo panels should not make comments before the movie. for exactly the reasons you stated

I saw this for the first time last week as it happens

It's good

I like the idea of this series in theory, and it is exactly the kind of thing I'd be going to if I lived in TO (or had the time/money/patience to drive 2 hours to attend a screening), but in practice it sounds like it turned into a bit too much of a humourless Mystery Science Theatre 3000, and yeah, I'd be pissed.

The film’s/director’s/writer’s sympathy is with, if anyone, Tammy Meltzer

I agree with this. The film does even occasionally align its sympathies with Tracy, I'd argue.

yeah i always thought the film explicitly sided with Tracy as the hero. i mean, what more do you need than the last scene? jealous, conniving, impotent, pathetic man chucking a milkshake at a successful woman's town car. and then he runs away like the rat he is. i mean, it's obvious

I do not understand why "panel -> drinks -> movie" would make any sense to a thoughtful person as a good run of show. It should be exactly the opposite.

flappy did you not perceive that Tracy's striving-yet-entitled haughtiness and gratuitous ambition might not be the characteristics of a hero

i mean, it's obvious

How did this guy go from such sharp, vicious satires to lame "what's life all about?" movies?

Something else that happened, which I couldn't really hear at the time because there was so much noise: they took the last audience question for the panel, and then, when a guy tried to ask one more question--and decided it would be a good idea to say "Can a man ask a question?" at an event called Bechdel Tested, in a audience that was probably 75% female--he was shouted down.

http://twitter.com/hashtag/bechdeltested?src=hash

Not sure how I feel about this. Questioning had stopped, and it sounded like he was grandstanding a bit. On the other hand, I hate mob-mentality in any context. Like when I was at a Dalton Trumbo documentary once, with Donald Sutherland speaking, and a guy got up and tried to say "But wouldn't you agree that Russia was doing some awful things in the midst of the McCarthy Era...". I didn't know if the guy had something valid to say or not--he was shouted down just as he was getting started, egged on by Sutherland.

Well now I'm confused, surely one or the other of them has to be the entirely sympathetic hero xps

i'm definitely against alcohol in movie theaters, and certainly at a paneled screening

xp well she's very Hillary-esque, and HRC is a hero/ role model despite her problems. I think the film portrays Tracy in the same way- ruthless but not entirely selfish and certainly not as pathetic and apathetic as almost everyone else in the film

I do not understand why "panel -> drinks -> movie" would make any sense to a thoughtful person as a good run of show. It should be exactly the opposite.

The film does even occasionally align its sympathies with Tracy, I'd argue.

Occasionally, I think it does too, especially in her confrontation with McAlister over Dave. Most of the time, though, I'd go with the idea of her as Nixon. (Last night, Tammy suddenly seemed like Trump during her speech in the gym: elect me so I can tear everything down.)

Yeah, panels should go after the movie. Keep any introductory comments under five minutes, don't prime the audience to react a certain way, and have a Q&A afterwards if you want to get the audience involved.

oh yeah clemenza otm re: tammy as trump

Panels after the movie are a much better idea in general, but this panel wasn't talking about the film at all, so beforehand seemed okay. The provocation came from the hosts, not the panel.

Yeah, panels should go after the movie. Keep any introductory comments under five minutes, don't prime the audience to react a certain way, and have a Q&A afterwards if you want to get the audience involved.

― jmm, Monday, February 19, 2018 12:31 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes! i saw agnes varda's VAGABOND last year at a film festival, sold out theater w/ hundreds of people, Beach House presented, only comments beforehand were from victoria legrand: "I really love this movie, and I really love this character. hope you like it, too."

Panels have been a good idea precisely once in history

The Obama Death Panels, obviously.

there's a reason they put them before the movie unless the doors are locked

kinda off topic but that's why i never read reviews or much advance press or go out of my way to watch trailers for movies before i see them. i remember as a young kid obsessively watching trailers for movies i was psyched to see (god, i must've watched the trailers for both Kill Bills hundreds of times, not exaggerating), and all that stuff just shades your perception of the film and dulls its impact

Occasionally, I think it does too, especially in her confrontation with McAlister over Dave. M

Agree with this. The one indisputably sympathetic moment come when Tracy, in voice-over, admits she still misses Dave and their talks; Witherspoon is good at suggesting Tracy's loneliness.

The other thing is--and you have to step back a bit from Tracy herself--is that she's obviously right: the idea that anyone would vote for Paul before her to run anything is ludicrous.

paul... popular.... peanut
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, February 6, 2008 7:05 PM

Man, I laughed at that line last night.

totally disagree that the film sees Tracy as Nixon, she's totally a Hillary analogue

or, rather, public perceptions of Hillary.

That's a better analogy--although there's some Nixon in Hillary, too. (I won't post the infamous Obama/Hillary/Election video from 2008 yet again. And hope this doesn't veer off into one more Hillary discussion...)

does Tracy at any point feel guilt for her part in ruining Dave's life? I don't remember.

I keep coming back to this film, especially because I work in education. I just love how almost all the characters are deeply flawed people who are almost always portrayed in a sympathetic way while they do dumb things without much in the way of self awareness. This really tallies with my experience of life in general.

(xpost) I don't think she does, and I don't think she needs to--that's what's hashed out in the scene in McAlister's office, when he calls her in about the destroyed posters. He tries to tell her that she needs to take responsibility for her part in ruining a guy's career, and she totally destroys that idea.

yeah i always thought the film explicitly sided with Tracy as the hero.

I don't get how anyone can watch this movie and think there's a "hero" in it

she pays lip service to him in v.o., but it's not really sincere ("i miss our talks," and then iirc, something like "he should've know what he was getting into" and then that hilarious moment when she says "i hope he's doing well, working on his novel" -cut to dave pricing beans in a grocery store)

or, rather, public perceptions of Hillary.

yes, but not strictly that. ultimately tracy is an aspirational figure: escaped out of omaha with noble political goals. she may be motivated by typical politician narcissism, but she has good intentions. she's not a corrupt figure

I found the kid who counted votes (and who spit on McAlister's car) the most insufferable of them all. I've known quite a few of these literalist by-the-book self-righteous types (and, of course, he is correct and McAlister looks even worse when he suggests the kid's incompetent).

She has intentions fuelled only by ambition and narciscissm she's no heroine

xxxp it's not clear cut but Tracy is absolutely the hero- emerging out of a broken home, a fucked up relationship, and serious ratfucking by a vengeful middle-aged man. not to mention the entire student body aligned against her. again, the last scene makes it obvious imo

Camaraderie @ AL, that's a good description of why I feel no need to see this again despite loving it. Just like dozens of other movies I loved in the theater on first viewing and they're really important to me and I'll never, ever need to watch them again because so much of everyday life and us assholes who populate it are reminders of the themes, scenes and feelings from the film.

flappy bird your reading of Tracy's character is bonkers

She has intentions fuelled only by ambition and narciscissm she's no heroine

― rum dmc (darraghmac), Monday, February 19, 2018 12:59 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this describes 99% of politicians, and while i don't necessarily disagree, she at least focuses her ambition toward a more noble goal than everyone else in the film.

49% of the student body != the entire student body, your argument sucks

(xposts) I like that guy! I don't think he was self-righteous, he just knew he'd counted the votes correctly and was perplexed as to why the numbers didn't add up. (Spitting on the car was just kind of flourish to punctuate McAlister's abject downfall--maybe didn't need to be there.)

Tracy really doesn't need to have any sympathy for Dave, but her reaction is more interesting as she views the relationship through this prism of individual responsibility rather than personal feelings of animosity for having taken advantage of her.

yea it's actually very reminiscent of Monica Lewinsky's view of her relationship with Bill Clinton, which is coincidental because her interview with Barbara Walters aired the same month Election came out.

@tombot - good point, tho tbf we never hear from any Tracy stans. but you're right

and actually i'd argue that that is another analogue to HRC- the disinterest and derision crowds out the considerable support

Tracy's politics are never explicitly stated, but it's clear she is going to be a callous Randian type, this film is sympathetic with her as a person but clearly she is going to be a normal, horrible career politician.