Theatrical Review of Recount

"

Theatrical review

By Jason P. Vargo
First published May 22, 2008

Connect to Facebook/Twitter, recommend via email and much more.

Reopening the wounds (depending on your political affiliation, of course) of the 2000 presidential election, "Recount" is little more than a partisan, bitter, comical, delusional "reenactment" of the historic George W. Bush vs. Al Gore fight for the White House. With a litany of A-list talent attached, including Kevin Spacey, Laura Dern, Denis Leary, John Hurt, Tom Wilkinson and Ed Begley, Jr., it´s a pity the script by Danny Strong couldn´t be stronger, clearer and keep a reign on its politics.

We all know the story which thrust hanging chads, butterfly ballots and more constitutional law than we ever wanted to know into the limelight. The hotly contested election came down to one state, Florida, with its 25 electoral votes. Television networks called the race for Gore, then for Bush…and then the lawsuits began. The hand recounting of votes, deadlines, extensions, appellate courts, state courts, the Supreme Court. Machinations on both sides led to a historic argument in front of the United States Supreme Court, which gave the election of Bush…with the caveat the ruling applied only to this specific occurrence and none in the future. A month of education on the electoral system ended on December 12, 2000.

If "Recount" had stuck to the facts, drawn the characters in anything but cartoonish caricatures or pretended to take an objective look at the subject matter, it would have hit pay dirt. Instead, this film debuting on HBO Memorial Day weekend, is completely transparent in its politics, doing everything but drawing halo´s on the Democrats and devil horns on the Republicans. Is this the last vestige of the election, a final shot across the bow? Quite frankly, I don´t quite care.

See, in nearly every film depicting actual events and people, a small blurb comes onto the screen early on, claiming to be "based on" or "inspired by" a true story. Neither is the case here. Strong and director Jay Roach (a comedy director more than anything else) have no intention of presented an unbiased account of what happened. Witness, for instance, the portrayal of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (Dern) as a dim-witted, image obsessed beauty queen thrust with little understanding of the law. Even Republican advisor James Baker (Wilkinson) continually rolls his eyes and demeans her. Hers is perhaps the worst portrayal in the film, not because of Dern, but because of the script itself.

Lets talk about the script, since it is the single most lumbering, talkative, one-sided piece of non-fiction fiction we´re likely to get this year. Aside from the generalities of the events, I can´t believe any of the post-election shenanigans happened as it is shown here, not to mention the dialogue. Strong has a knack for painting in general strokes without the ability to fine-tune the work to create believability. He relies on the audience to bring their own recollections and feelings of the election to the table to generate any emotion. Despite him-and ourselves-when the final ruling of the Supreme Court comes down, we silently hope this time is will be different. Of course, it´s not, which is all the more heartbreaking when the characters get the news.

Strong revels in a certain technique-perhaps it is Roach who brought it to the table-of reading a document and then switching to the author reading it to the camera. To both of their credit, they manage to break up the monotony of following the same characters over and over again by inserting a fresh voice, no matter how long it is audible. And, for Roach, he keeps the story from being boring by continually moving from one camp to another.

There is jab after jab toward the Republican side of the equation, so many, in fact, the film becomes a ponderous mess halfway through. Even the venerable John Hurt as Warren Christopher can´t save the endeavor, being portrayed as a hapless and weak cog in the Democratic appeal. (It should be noted, the real-life Christopher-and other people associated with the recount-object to portrayals in the movie.) Republicans are thugs and goons while the Democrats are weaker, though on the moral high ground. That´s about as deep as the movie has any intention of going.

The other Dems, for their part, show more fire in their bellies than this version of Secretary Christopher. Spacey´s Ron Klain, former aide to Gore, and Leary´s Michael Whouley, a political strategist, lead the way in subdued, though always strong roles. No one on either side is given much to do in the way of bravura acting except to recite legalese and pontificate in front of the camera. There is another problem, besides the script, however. We lived through these events. We know the public personae´s of all these people, we watched in breathless anticipation of any new decision or press release. To capture 36 days of tension and drama is nearly impossible for a two hour film. To capture it in a script this flawed and tilted? Impossible.

And that´s the downfall of "Recount": its partisan nature. Its inability to be honest with the audience about the motives behind the endeavor. The production doesn´t concern itself with getting the details and minutia right; it figures as long as the main bullet points are there, no one will notice. Conservatives will say this is another stab at them from liberal Hollywood; liberals will continue to point to 2000 as the year it all went south. Is it conceivable Baker acted as demoniacally as he is shown to be in this movie? Or Harris to be as complete a buffoon? How about the white horse Klain rides in on?

There are layers to people, depths to get to in order to understand their motivations. We get nothing of the sort. Stereotypes and caricatures. Those do not make for good cinematic bedfellows. Thanks to a nearly worthless script, "Recount" garners a 3 out of 10, all of which is for the considerable acting talent on the screen.

Connect to Facebook/Twitter, recommend via email and much more.