|
Directed
by Rod Lurie
Written by Rod Lurie
Joan
Allen .... Laine Hanson
Gary Oldman .... Shelly Runyon
Jeff Bridges .... President Jackson Evans
Sam Elliott .... Kermit Newman
Christian Slater .... Reginald Webster
William L. Petersen .... Jack Hathaway
Philip Baker Hall .... Oscar Billings
Saul Rubinek .... Jerry Tolliver
Mike Binder .... Lewis Hollis
Produced
by Rainer Bienger (executive), Willi Bär Marc Frydman, Maurice Leblond
(executive), Steve Loglisci (co-producer), Gary Oldman (executive),
Scott Shiffman (CO-producer), James Spies, Douglas Urbanski
Original music by Larry Groupé
Cinematography by Denis Maloney
Film Editing by Michael Jablow
Rated
R for strong sexual content and language.
|
|
ENJOYED
IT, HOWEVER...
Subject:
Critical of Christian values
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000
From: Garrett
Enjoyed
the storyline and the plot, and would definitely view it again.
However, the film seems to deify and glorify a Clinton-like President
and his Vice-Presidential candidate whose values are sadly lacking.
Laine clearly says in her testimony that she does not look to God
for guidance, but democracy. She also favors choice over life. The
film depicts her as a lonely embattled hero, despite her ungodly
values, yet depicts those who favor life and standards of right
and wrong as evil. While I deplored the actions and intent of the
senator whom Oldman played, I even more deplored the sympathetic
portrayal of someone who openly denounced God and advocated the
murdering of the unborn over protecting their lives. While Laine
certainly stands up for privacy, and there is good in that, we mustn't
forget that she expressed views consistent with secular humanism.
Garrett
THE
MESSAGE IS FLAWED
Subject: The Contender
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000
From: Andres
The
basic message behind this film is flawed in my opinion. The film
is essentially trying to laud the senator for sticking to her principles
even in the face of public humiliation where the public will assume
the worse if she doesn't reply to the accussations. The problem
with this message is that it commits the same error as Kant's statements
on moral reasoning, it fails to acknowledge the value of choosing
your values. Sure, your principles are important but when one is
going to make the ultimate sacrifice, in this case carreer suicide,
based on this principle, it is best to do this at a substantial
moment. Plato states that courage is essentially in the middle of
a spectrum with cowardice at one side and recklessness at the other.
Rushing headlong into every single battle is not brave, it's self-destructive.
As
such in the film, and I realise that this was done for dramatic
suspense, Lane Hanson should not have just refused to reply to the
accussations, she should have stopped acting so guilty. If she really
wanted to make an impact on the sorts of questions that can be asked
when determining a person's merit, making herself seem guilty doesn't
make the point she desires since the general public just thinks
she was indiscrete and doesn't want to say anything about it. Furthermore,
she is rarely eloquent about the point she wishes to make, instead
of qualifying her refusal to answer questions as to her indiscretions,
she simply states she won't answer the questions. Frankly she wanted
her carreer to be killed, she wanted to become a political martyr.
Andres
Response:
You make a good point. It is a flawed story.
THE
CONTENDER IS A CHRISTIAN BASHER
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
From: Kris
I think this is one of the most outrageous films to come out of
Hollywood recently. It is particularly interesting in its timing
just before a hotly-contested presidential election. Basically this
film paints everything in two brushes - the guys and gals with the
white hats - supporting abortion, strict "separation of church and
state", and a largely amoral leadership where the goal is that sexual
"indiscretions" by women are winked at just as sexual "indiscretions"
by men have been (rather than pushing for a higher standard from
both.) And the black hats - conservative, even evangelical, pro-life
leaders - who are painted as hypocritical, misogynistic, dour and
dishonest.
Perhaps
the most surprising, jarring and distressing thing was when the
Vice Presidential nominee Laine Hanson (played by the always-excellent
Joan Allen) is confronted with the fact that she had had an affair
with her adviser during an earlier Senate race and he had left his
wife for her. The fact that any administration would consider anyone
for a position as responsible and sensitive as VP who had - recently
- done something as despicable as this - is mystifying. The fact
that it only comes out as a "by the way" revelation during the congressional
hearings beggars belief. It is glossed over and - like the Lewinsky
scandal - Hanson makes a lame objection that it is her personal
business and doesn't reflect on her fitness to be VP. Wrong. But
it was interesting that it got far less attention than a supposed
sexual fling she had in college. (Which may actually be a telling
commentary on current attentions.) Anyway, no kudos, although the
film was well made and some excellent acting. To those who disagree
with my "take", how would you like it if we did the same thing to
blacks, gays, or some other group in a film. There would be an uproar.
Kris
PARTISAN
PROPAGANDA DEMONIZING CONSERVATIVES
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000
From: "Mary Main"
Hello,
a friend told me about your site, and it's wonderful. But, why haven't
you reviewed this unrelenting 2 1/2 hours of partisan propaganda
demonizing Conservatives, Christians and Pro-Lifers? Let me tell
ya, it is a slick, well-done movie that basically trashes Christian
values and in scenes where the heroine jogs through a cemetery which
I supposed to be Arlington, implied that she was making comparable
sacrifices for her country to the war heroes buried there. Don't
miss it. We need your opinion.
Sincerely, Mary Main
Author of "Tower of Evil" and "The Deadliest of Friends"
|
THE
CONTENDER
