Last night I finally saw Recount (HBO, debuting 5.25), and I feel no hesitancy whatsoever in calling it totally crackerjack — a throughly engaging, first-rate political drama that gets you off. It’s also fair to use the word “brilliant,” I think. It’s no small feat to make a gripping film that’s mostly about a bunch of middle-aged political operatives bickering and maneuvering over vote counts, media statements, lawsuits, court decisions, dimpled chads and all that jazz. But director Jay Roach and first-time screenwriter Danny Strong have done this.

This despite the fact that in a flash-forward sense it’s telling an essentially grim tale about how the George Bush forces managed to finagle things in their favor at the end of the day. The result was that they took this country into economic ruin and international disrepute over the following eight years, a situation which ultimately led to my gassing up last night at the corner of Beverly and La Cienega and having to pay $53 dollars…good God!
You might presume that an HBO drama about the “street fight” (as it was apparently called by senior Bush operative James Baker) over the Florida returns in the wake of the 2000 presidential election might be a little too inside-baseball for most people. Well, maybe some will say that. But it struck me as brisk, engaging, dryly humorous and never less than gripping. It’s very specific in a political-junkie sense, but it gets into this realm with such verve that it’s impossible not to be affected in a contact-high sense.
That was my reaction, at least. It kept reminding me of Zodiac in its eagerness to burrow into detail and make that detail be the whole thing — the spring from which all meaning flows.

If Recount was a theatrical film I would definitely have it down as one of the year’s best so far. This kind of movie has been abandoned by producers of theatrical fare, of course. Moviegoing tastes have dumbed down to the point where putting a film of this type into the plexes would be seen as borderline suicidal.
It’s one of those no-frills historical recreation pieces in the vein of ’03’s The Pentagon Papers or ’79’s Blind Ambition with a little Primary Colors attitude and some of the biting political satire that I remember from Michael Ritchie‘s The Candidate.
Recount seems to pass along a good portion of the truth — it doesn’t seem to pussyfoot around in dramatizing what really happened — but it doesn’t feel to me as if Roach and Strong are totally in the tank for the Democrats. The Republicans (except, to be fair, in the case of Laura Dern‘s hilarious portrayal of former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris) are, it seems to me, honestly recreated and dramatized.
Recount is chock full of delicious performances. At the top of the list is Kevin Spacey‘s portrayal of Democratic operative and longtime Gore staffer Ron Klain (easily his most sympathetic role since American Beauty), Tom Wilkinson‘s superb performance as Baker, Dern’s Harris, Denis Leary‘s smartly engaging turn as Democratic strategist Michael Whouley, Ed Begley, Jr.‘s very stirring inhabiting of Democratic attorney David Boies (i.e., the guy who argued the Gore case in front of the Supreme Court), and Bob Balaban‘s completely solid rendering of Republican operative Ben Ginsberg.

Recount director Jay Roach, costar Tom Hillman, screenwriter Danny Strong

Not to put down the comedies, but for me this is the best thing Roach has ever directed. Some IMDB guy wrote that he “can’t wait to see the first TV spot that says something along the lines of, ‘A powerful political drama from the director of Meet the Parents and Austin Powers.'” But that’s putting it corrrectly.
I can’t see how this film won’t be seen as having done serious damage to the reputation of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher — and justifiably so if what it shows is accurate. After Recount gets seen and kicked around Christopher (portrayed by John Hurt) will be widely seen as the one of the great all-time wimps — a seasoned diplomat who knew how to speak elegantly about the foundations of good government and high moral purpose, but who fundamentally and pathetically didn’t get the fact that sometimes in life you need to fight and fight hard.
One of the small pleasures of watching Wilkinson’s Baker is that at least he understands this. He’s even given a little human dimension towards the end when he talks about how he became a Republican when Bush Sr. got him out of the dumps when his wife died by persuading him to work for him. It’s a first-rate performance. Deserving of an Emmy nomination.
Katherine Harris will not be pleased by Dern’s portrayal of her. Her life over the last eight years or so has been well reported and documented, and there’s nothing in this film that hasn’t been vetted. Nonetheless it’s probably safe to say that her reputation has been sullied by this film for all time, and good riddance to that.

The only thing I miss is that dissenting opinion from Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens regarding Bush. vs. Gore: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
96% of the people who write in about this are going to say “who cares?,” “get over it!,” “Bush won…stop whining” and so on. So I may as well respond to this in advance. Recount is not simplistic and one-sided by my sights. It doesn’t suggest that George Bush really did win the election in terms of the popular vote in Florida and across the nation because he didn’t. Nor does it say that the Supreme Court decision in his favor was totally impartial and unmotivated by political considerations.
You can put on the tap shoes and shilly-shally all you want, but if the entire state of Florida had been recounted, and if those Broward County fogies hadn’t voted for Pat Buchanan by mistake, and if all those African-American Floridians hadn’t been unfairly disqualified from voting, Al Gore would have been sworn in as president in 2001.

“Lawrence of Latin America,” my Huffington Post article about Steven Soderbergh‘s two forthcoming films about Ernesto “Che” Guevara, went up a few minutes ago. I’ve said some of the same things in previous postings, but here are two taster graphs anyway:

“If you love epic-styled movies you’ve certainly seen and loved Lawrence of Arabia, which also means you’ve been influenced by the great win-lose Lawrence theme. The first half of David Lean‘s Oscar-winning 1962 film is mostly about climbing the mountain — the dream, the struggle and the rush of an enigmatic hero fighting and winning an underdog battle. The second half is about tumbling down the other side as the cards — personal, logistical and political — turn against him.
“It’s the basic template for almost every ambitious life or grand adventure. Things are always glorious and heart-pumping when you start out with God or fate on your side, but sooner or later these same forces will hand you clouds, complications and downturns. Just ask Barack Obama.
“This theme is why I’ve been so enthused about seeing Steven Soderbergh’s Che Guevara films, The Argentine and Guerilla, for over a year now. Because Peter Buchman‘s two scripts, which I read in March 2007, made it clear that this two-part epic, which Soderbergh has been struggling to finish in time for the Cannes Film Festival and which reportedly runs over four hours, is essentially Lawrence of Latin America.
“Benicio del Toro, the moody and mesmerizing Marlon Brando-ish actor whose work keeps getting deeper and more fascinating, is all but certain to stir Oscar talk for his performance as Ernesto “Che” Guevara, the legendary Argentine/ Cuban firebrand. Even if the Che movies turn out to be problematic, Del Toro can’t not whip ass. He’s too strange, too gifted. Guevara is too perfect a role for him. All the stars and planets are aligned.”

Nicole Kidman is intending to star in a Dusty Springfield biopic (’60s music, manic perfectionist streak, lesbian longings, drugs and booze, early death) being written by Michael Cunningham. Great, but there’s a side issue. It isn’t mentioned in this New York “Vulture” piece, but it seems too coincidental for this project to be announced two and a half months after a play about Springfield called “Stay Forever: The Life and Music of Dusty Springfield,” played for three weeks last February (2.7 through 2.24) at the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center.

Many industry people caught this show. CSI‘s William Petersen was there the night I attended. Previous Springfield biopic projects have come and gone, but a voice is telling me that the idea for the Kidman project probably came from this show. That or the show certainly goosed things along. The star, Kirsten Holly Smith, was excellent in the role. Looked like Springfield, sang and talked like her, etc. I can’t imagine Kidman being better than she.

After he finishes Mary, Queen of Scots, Phillip Noyce will probably direct The Art of Making Money, a DreamWorks project about Art Williams, a real-life Chicago counterfeiter who printed more than $10 million in fake bills, etc. The guy is currently doing time for this. Screenwriter Frank Baldwin is adapting Jason Kersten‘s Rolling Stone 2005 profile of Williams.

Mel Gibson isn’t Mel Gibson any more. The last time “that guy” appeared in a film was What Women Want. Since the Malibu DUI arrest he’s gotten too heavy and thin of hair to be an attractive box-office draw. To me he’ll always be the bearded wacko in the flannel shirt with a shave. The upside is that Edge of Darkness, an adaptation of a six-hour BBC miniseries, has been written by the great William Monaghan (The Departed) and the very competent Martin Campbell.

I worked for three hours this morning on a piece about Steven Soderbergh‘s Che Guevara films, The Argentine and Guerilla, for another website, hence my silence. It feels like a funny thing to write something longish (1700 words) and send it off and then…wait. I’ve become accustomed to instant gratification.

Come the fall Steven Soderbergh will direct The Girlfriend Experience — a 14-day quickie about “the world of prostitution from the vantage point of a $10,000-a- night call girl” (according to Variety‘s Michael Fleming). This will probably be one of Soderbergh’s interesting sidelight films, most likely. Soderbergh, who “gets” women, hasn’t mined this turf enough.
But it’s a 2929 Entertainment whatsis movie (Mark Cuban, Todd Wagner, HD Net) so let’s keep things in perspective. I say this as a huge fan of Bubble, by the way. As far as I’m concerned Bubble was Soderbergh’s big comeback film after being in a slump for God knows how many years. Soderbergh will direct The Informant with Matt Damon for Warner Bros. before doing the Girlfriend thing,

As Defamer’s sum-up points out, Jon Cusack‘s War, Inc. has gone into the tank after showing at the Tribeca Film Festival. Reviews from N.Y. Post critic Lou Lumenick, Spoutblog‘s Karina Longworth and the Hollywood Reporter‘s Frank Sheck are viewable for all to see. But HE reader Joseph Kay has something interesting to say besides.

Jon Cusack, Joan Cusack in War, Inc.

“Apologies if you’ve covered/couldn’t care less about this, but John Cusack’s War, Inc. silently crept into theaters here in Toronto this week, and I believe nowhere else,” he writes. “The reason for the stealth, I’m guessing, having seen the film last night, is that it’s pretty much an unmitigated disaster, messy and all-over-the-place and largely nonsensical
“But it does have a point-of-view (albeit very on-the-nose) and in a world where every third major release is seemingly about the romantic chemistry generated by the metaphor of street dancing, at least Cusack and his partners were trying to do something interesting and different.
“The big problem is they were shooting for the darkly comic impact of Dr. Strangelove, obviously an impossible target for anybody except maybe Charlie Kaufman, and also the film is very weirdly grafted onto the template for Grosse Point Blank , a strange decision which seems to have the mutual effect of hurting War, Inc. while you watch it and Grosse Point retroactively.”

The trailer for Tim Burton‘s original Batman vs. one for Chris Nolan‘s The Dark Knight. The College Humor guys who put this up are using the headline “why so similar?” Indeed — these spots are remarkably alike.

Hollywood Chicago‘s Adam Fendleman is pointing to an ugly, cell-phone video of the new Dark Knight trailer — shot in a theatre with reddish tints and all the crappy ambient noise that you always get with these things. An official, much better looking version of this trailer will be viewable this Sunday.
The best thing about the trailer is Heath Ledger‘s voice. He’s speaking in a kind of raspy Midwestern twang. Nothing at all that sounds the least bit Ennnis del Mar-ish.

“With all that’s gone down between Washington and Hollywood, it’s a shame that politicians still don’t trust their showbiz supporters,” Politico‘s Jeff Ressner notes, observing that “for the most part, D.C. treats L.A. as a gigantic ATM machine and the movie business as a means to pick up campaign cool points — while trying to keep potentially radioactive celebrities at arm’s length.
“But as candidates exploit moguls and movie stars for cash and cachet, they often reject creative assistance from the artists and executives at Hollywood’s dream factories.”
Like — hello? — Oscar-winning documentarian Errol Morris? A director who has knocked out brilliant ad spots for years, and arguably put together the most convincing anti-Bush/pro-Kerry spots of the 2004 campaign? A couple of weeks ago I wrote that Morris (Standard Operating Procedure, The Fog of War), working with MoveOn.org, created a brilliant series of TV ads about ‘real people’ (mostly Republicans) who’d voted for George Bush in 2000, but had decided to vote for John Kerry in 2004.
“This year, there are many more Republicans talking about voting for Obama than were persuaded about Kerry four years ago. See where I’m going with this?” The Obama campaign should contract Morris to do a series of spots about Obamacans, and this time actually put them on the air — as opposed to what happened in 2004, which is that they were basically shelved for TV use and seen only at moveon.org and at errolmorris.com.
Ressner talks to “a top marketing vice president at one of the leading motion picture studios to explain just how he might help the three current candidates in each of their respective quests for the White House,” etc. And that’s fine. Except nothing this guy says is as interesting or persuasive as the cumulative effect of those ’04 Morris spots.