In Man of the Year, we follow a political comedian on the campaign trail in a bid to outrun entrenched political power moguls who have traded representation of the people for representation of special interest groups comprised of power echelon who foist profit above earth, air, wind and honor.
Rapid fire scenes show the adroit cinematography and directorial finery of UK cinematographer Dick Pope (The Illusionist) and veteran, award winning and acclaimed director Barry Levinson (Wag the Dog, Rain Man), not to leave unmentioned the linguistic gymnastics of Robin Williams, Christopher Walken and Lewis Black (Accepted) in behind-the-scenes scenes that have the stamp, whether authentically or by orchestrated design, of improvisational repartee and spontaneous showmanship between old and trusted colleagues and friends.
By contrast, in a setting of deliberate, measured and calculated high tech stakes for big money gambles, we accompany Laura Linney (The Squid and the Whale, PS), as a computer expert, on her journey into forbidden waters of found errors and ruinous glitches, which, when reckoned with, prove to be forces powerful enough to either bring the monied technical elite to its knees or to bring her to her knees. The drama of Man of the Year unfolds as she races to a decision which propels her into actions that lead her into unchartered waters.
Man of the Year‘s contrasting story lines of comedian and computer expert come to a juncture as the principals’ interests merge. As options narrow, inner qualities come to the fore directing choices. It is this that carries us along to the final fruition of behaviors and actions.
In Man of the Year, Delacroy Electronics has developed an avant garde computer voting machine and has secured the national contract to provide voting computers at the upcoming Presidential election: The United States of America will vote electronically with Delacroy. And the Delacroy Electronics Corporation power echelon is jubilant amidst rising stock prices and contract prospects. On the eve of the election, one excited, enthusiastic and eager Delacroy computer program development engineer, Eleanor Green, runs a full-scale simulation of the expected voting traffic during the November 2nd election. Simulation results plunge Eleanor into the darker realities of corporate success. Then, corporate men with the power to decide (Jeff Goldblum, Rick Roberts) make decisions on Eleanor’s behalf that have life altering effects.
Meanwhile, in a comedic gimmick borrowed from Pat Paulsen of the old Laugh In TV series, a political comedian named Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams), the ultimate Man of the Year, is inspired by serendipitous happenstance to declare himself a candidate for President of the United States of America. In a purely grassroots movement, Dobbs crosses the country by bus with his former talent and TV management team (Christopher Walken, Lewis Black, and crew), now turned campaign management team, to drum up awareness, interest, debate and support.
Through the spiraling effects of Eleanor Green’s election simulation results, Eleanor and Dobbs meet up and the external adventures and inner struggles of Man of the Year escalate.
[Cut Away to a Brief She and Me Conversation]
She: There are a lot of unique effects, like the special lighting techniques. Like in the kitchen scene, the lighting looks intimate and private, like the lighting on soap operas.
Me: Hmmm. I see what you mean about the soap opera lighting. I noticed the variety of cinematographic effects, but I didn’t notice that one so much, myself. I noticed more the documentary-like feel to the lighting and cinematography in the campaign scenes, like in the bus and during televised debates and such.
She: And I didn’t think the plot was predictable. I mean, I wouldn’t have predicted the things that did and did not happen to Eleanor. I thought something entirely different would happen, in fact.
Me: I think you’re right. I mean, aside from the fact that it is a story that has to have a satisfactory end, I didn’t find it predictable. Well – there was one moment that was expected, anticipated – note, I do not say “predicted” – but it was intended by the director cum screenplay writer [Barry Levinson] that it should be expected and anticipated. We were handed clues in critical places – along with some contradictory clues, too, I might add – that were meant intentionally to put us, as it were, in the characters’ shoes, so that we might feel the struggle and resolution that s/he, her/himself, felt, and in that way become personally invested in the outcome.
She: Much of the dialog is presented as improvisation, and I bet it truly is. I bet it actually is mostly improvisation.
Me: Oh, you think so? It certainly is meant to seem like improvisational conversation between people completely familiar with each other, as these characters are, but – wow – I don’t see how it possibly could be improvisation. That would be quite some feat. That is impressive verbal foot-work they do – well, impressive whether improvised or written.
She: And I thought Laura Linney did a good job of portraying the character of Eleanor Green – although I didn’t like the character – she did a very good job of portraying her.
Me: You didn’t like the character??
She: No. Too much uncertainty and floundering: If you have something to say, blurt it out, “You’re blah, blah, blah, blah.” (No spoilers.)
Me: So, you thought she should have behaved differently in a world-changing, life and death situation? Like Darby Shaw in Pelican Brief!?
She: Yeah, like Pelican Brief! Eleanor just showed too much nervousness and hyper-emotionalism.
Me: But then, her house had just ****** and she had just gotten ****** and wound up in ****** with a list of ***** and was ****** who ******. (No spoilers.)
She: Well then, there’s that, too.
Me: I also thought she did a terrific job of being an ordinary computer-minded corporate employee who finds herself in a moral dilemma of world proportions and patently dangerous aspects. And I hadn’t thought of it before, but I do see why you say that maybe she didn’t quite always succeed with the hyper-emotionalism, like perhaps at the birthday party. But I think we like her so much in general that we’re willing to forgive her for it and look the other way….
She: Well no, not really….
[End She and Me Conversation.]
The supporting actors in Man of the Year live up to the standard set by Williams, Linney, Walken and Black, even to the point of lending authenticity and sincerity to the scenes in which their primary function is to react: to television, debate, discussions, events. This adds to the periodic documentary tone, which is one of the three or four different tones that ebb and flow throughout.
One of the few negative things to say about Man of the Year, is that I wish Robin Williams had insisted on using his natural hair color. The hair color choice made by key hair stylist Paul R. J. Elliot accentuates Williams’ age in a distracting manner and gives him the unnatural pallor produced by full-bodied color against the delicate shades of matured skin. Also, perhaps Williams is trying to present a younger man than he can absolutely carry off these days; aging is okay (hey, Bob Hope did it). This may be the reason that Tom Dobbs’ interactions with Eleanor Green seem a little less entrancing than one would like.
Another negative aspect to Man of the Year is that there are some inexplicable moments, such as when a certain character acquires accouterments with which to go under cover and then succeeds in gaining access into restricted government areas. Nothing in the story prepares us for this talent at undercover work. Was it poor writing? Or did the story information wind up on the editor’s floor (Steve Weisberg, The Producers), as so often happens when editors and directors pay homage to the Goddess, Pace (we’ll only know when we see the deleted scenes on DVD).
Man of the Year is decidedly a political film: It is a film about politics and it makes a political statement. There are explicit references to the infamous Florida-ballot-count Bush/Gore election; there are visual references to Al Gore’s presence in the debates preceding that election; there are salutes to Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth in addition to the direct and indirect references to the current President Bush. This interlacing of near history with fiction, aided by the appearances of authentic news personalities (Chris Mathews, James Carville) adds depth and intricacy to the film for those who are familiar with (indeed, intrigued by) the events of that monumental campaign and election.
Me: Man of the Year, a film echoing real-life dilemmas and events, presents profound situations courting fate and destiny in which honorable and dishonorable choices produce far-ranging reverberations. See this movie. I rate it as outstanding, especially for screenplay, directing and supporting cast, at 4 stars.
She: Man of the Year is worth seeing and I liked it, it just wasn’t very thrilling and awe inspiring. But, it was filmed in such a different way, with the improv and the unusual lighting, that it felt foreign to me. So, with that foreign feeling in mind, I’ll say that I liked the improvisational qualities and the story, but I didn’t really like the characters because some of their personalities were grating, especially Walken and Linney. I just didn’t like them. I give Man of the Year an above average 3 1/2 stars.
PMR, Prime Movie Reviews: Primarily Movies but not Exclusively
at www.pmr-reviews.com
