Bleeding heart American liberals will probably love this film, while Yanks more disposed to neo-con values will probably hate it. Being neither (and not even an American), I feel that this works rather well as a film, but — for me — is spoilt by the huge dollops of American treacle poured over it in the final scenes. The 10/10 marks given here by other — probably bleeding heart liberal — reviewers baffle me. First, NO film should get 10/10, in order to leave that mark for some future work so extraordinarily good that it leaves everything else in the shade. Second, I suspect that top mark owes rather more to applauding the sentiments emoted by the film than the quality of the film itself. But that quality is good. I think Jeff Bridges always gives a good performances and seems to choose those parts which allow him to give a good performance. Sam Elliot as the ultra-pragmatic foul-mouthed chief-of-staff is also hugely watchable, as is the quiet dignity of Joan Allen, the vice-presidential nominee with possible a dark secret. Our very own British Gary Oldman gives equal good value for money as the committee chairman in whom principle shades off into almost pure malice. Tension is also well-sustained to the end, with a plot that has sufficient twists and turns. Some failings of the film would include the rookie and principled Congressman portrayed by Christian Slater who gets himself appointed to the congressional committee ratifying Allen's nomination even though he has no experience — the justification for his appointment is never explained and Slater has no organic role in the plot at all. What is he there for other than to symbolise that 'our young are our future' or some such guff? And just why is Oldman (committee chairman Sheldon Runyon) so against Allen? These are, though, minor quibbles, and in many ways the more petty the gripes, the better the film. But the film's sentiment... I know that the U.S. provides by far the biggest market for Hollywood and is thus the market Hollywood tries to satisfy, but please spare a thought for the rest of us non-Americans who don't — and cannot even be expected to — share in the sentimental fiction that is the U.S. soul. (And I am, of course, bound to admit that all other nations, including the Brits, have such national fictions. We, for example, still fondly regard ourselves as 'a nation of seafarers'; the French are convinced that every last man, woman and dog is 'an intellectual'.) The U.S. fiction, as promulgated in The Contender, is that America is the home of ultimate truth, decency, honesty and freedom (achievable, of course, once all the bad Yanks out there, like Governor Hathaway, who tried to rig his own act of heroism, have been overcome and brought to book.) Now, admittedly, The Contender was made in 2000, but Guantanamo Boy, Abu Ghraib, the whole Iraq fiasco, various acts of massacre, but also the Vietnam War etc do rather spoil the 'home of the brave' etc act. In fact, they make it seem like a joke in poor taste. But, as I say, that is no criticism of the film as a film.
Review of The Contender
