Swing Vote (2008)

Every four years, Americans take to the voting booths and elect a President. Some races have been landslide victories while others have been flat-out nail-biters. Candidates and pundits like to tell us that every vote matters and Swing Vote latches onto that election-time mantra. The result is an amusing, thought-provoking, and subtly cynical look at the American electoral process.

Bud Johnson (Kevin Costner) is a single father in New Mexico. He doesn’t strike you as the kind of man who has a lot of ambition. He lives in a trailer, he drinks too much, and he just got fired from his latest blue-collar job. When the Presidential election comes around, Bud’s daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll) tries to get her father excited about his civic duty to ‘help shape the country’s future’ by voting. Bud promises he’ll vote, seeing as it means so much to his little girl. Realizing that her father isn’t going to vote, Molly sneaks into their polling place and attempts to cast a vote for her father. Just as the vote is being registered, the polls close and the machines are unplugged.

The next morning, Bud and Molly wake up to find that the election is down to the wire- a virtual tie! In fact, the whole race comes down to New Mexico and the popular vote was tied as the polls closed. However, authorities learn that when the poll shut down the voting booths, Bud’s vote was in process but not recorded. This means that he needs to re-cast “his” vote, which will determine the outcome of the entire election. Over the next few weeks, Bud is hounded by the Republican and Democratic candidates, courted by campaign advisers, and scrutinized by the media. In the end though, he has to make a choice.

Let’s face it- the likelihood of this scenario playing out in real life is virtually nil. Sure, some elections have come down to a matter of a few thousand votes in the past but it’s a statistical improbability that a state's popular vote would be separated by just one vote. But Swing Vote is not trying to present this as a serious situation; it’s merely asking ‘what if?’ By keeping things light, the filmmakers are able to keep viewers interested and they are also able to get plenty of jabs in at politics and the media.

I loved watching the flip-flopping that the Democrat and Republican vying for Bud’s vote resort to in a shallow attempt to win him over. Republican incumbent Andrew Boone (Kelsey Grammer) and his Democratic challenger Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper) end up switching their stances on ideological issues as the media reports Bud’s casual remarks about several hot-button political issues like abortion, immigration and the environment. It’s funny but it’s also sad because it shows just how shallow politics can be. I highly doubt party big-wigs will ever make such dramatic policy changes but it emphasizes the fact that professional politicians will say and do just about anything to get elected.

I must also take the time to give the filmmakers credit for playing their story out largely right up the middle. Let’s not forget- this is Hollywood we’re talking about here. This film could have easily been critical of just one side of the election. Fortunately, swipes are taken at both Republicans and Democrats. I approve of this equal-opportunity skewering because neither party is faultless or blameless. Ever.

I do feel like the film has a slight bias to the left though. Much of the media scrutiny that Bud is faced with revolves around his fitness to be the one to make such a crucial decision. He’s not the brightest crayon in the box and fits the lower-class bumpkin mold that seems to be a stereotype of Republicans and conservatives of the South and Southwest. The media pundits take aim at the fact that Bud has never shown any enthusiasm towards political decisions. I couldn’t tell if this cynical look at the main character was meant to reinforce how elitist and out of touch the media is or if this was a way for the writers to get their own opinions out in a veiled way.

Swing Vote is critical of everyone to a point. The politicians are obvious targets and the media are rightfully portrayed as vicious and opinionated. But it’s hard to tell where the filmmakers draw the line for calling us, the electorate, out. Because his decision matters the most, Bud is expected by everyone to research the issues and stances of the candidates. It’s only natural for everyone to want the crucial voter to be informed but this also makes a likely majority of the public to be hypocrites.

How many people actually research their choices before voting? How many simply read the propaganda sent in the mail or airing on TV commercials? I certainly hope people seeing this film will come away with it determined to take the civic duty more seriously. The filmmakers probably have this same goal in mind. Perhaps they are not looking at Bud the same way the media does. Lord knows that millions of “Bud Johnson’s” vote every year. Maybe the message here really is apolitical.

Still, Swing Vote leaves a semi-bitter taste in your mouth because it does paint a slightly negative picture of the general public. As a part of the general public, I take some offense. Sure, we’ve got a lot of work to do before everyone in the country can make accurately informed decisions but we’re not all as bad as Bud Johnson. The truth is, though, that every single one of us could be found 'objectionable' by our peers if put in the same situation.

You’ll laugh, you’ll squirm, and you’ll never believe this premise to be possible. In the end though, Swing Vote is worth watching, especially as our election cycles grow ever more contentious.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Dances with Wolves** (1990)

Filled with lush settings, costumes and cinematography, Kevin Costner’s directorial debut is an absolute eye-pleaser. Turning Western film conventions on their heads, Dances with Wolves’ subtleties and melancholy tones won over audiences and Oscar voters alike, making it one of the best and most successful anti-Westerns of all time.

I use the term anti-Western because the film defies most of the generalizations and stereotypes that had become the norm in “cowboy and Indian” flicks. Gone is the notion that the white man is good and virtuous in his move westward. Likewise, the archetypal angry Indian savage has been thrown out the window. This is not to say that the roles have been reversed, because they haven’t. Instead, Costner aims to depict both parties objectively, as genuine human beings with parallel virtues and flaws.

The South Dakota setting is the first step in the right direction. Instead of filming in the barren desolation of Monument Valley, Dances with Wolves tells its tale on the rugged prairies of the Great Plains. While you wouldn’t think that hill after hill would be much to look at, the vastness is quite gripping. For parts of the film, Costner’s only screen partners are the hills and the sky that eventually bends down to meet them. It is the essence of both wonder and vulnerability.

Costner plays Lt. John Dunbar, a man whose suicidal antics on the Civil War battlefield gets him labeled a hero and earns him a ticket to whatever outpost he likes. He chooses one of the most remote outposts on the western frontier. He finds it abandoned and in disarray. As the only tenant, he does his best to get the fort up to snuff. As he waits for the reinforcements that may never come, Dunbar has frequent visits by a curious wolf and tense encounters with the native Sioux Indian tribe.

Dunbar ultimately finds ways to ease the tension between himself and the Sioux and they form a mutual respect for each other. As his relationship with the Sioux builds, Dunbar finds himself more and more disenfranchised with the ways of the supposedly civilized white man and finds himself sympathetic to the Sioux cause. He finds friendship, dignity, love and inner peace with the natives and is forced to choose sides when US troops finally make their way to his fort, delivering harsh doses of Westward Expansion to anyone standing in their way.

The concept of “going native” was not new with this film but the process is head and shoulders above the rest because Costner allows plenty of time for Dunbar’s transformation to take place. At three hours long, Dances with Wolves is a sprawling tale. Without that kind of length, the story would have been shortchanged and Dunbar’s shift in allegiances would have seemed rushed.

While a three hour run time may have been necessary for the story to seem plausible, the film is not without its share of dull moments. The voice-overs and cinematography really help capture Dunbar’s isolation but there are times in the film when I felt more desperate for something to happen than Dunbar. It is very difficult for one person to be the focus of a film for a great length of time. Costner’s dry, matter-of-fact tone in the voice-overs doesn’t help much when you begin to feel less engaged by the film’s central character. A few years ago, Costner released a director’s cut version of the film that added an additional hour to the film’s run time. While the film is a real treat and a triumph at three hours, I fear that four hours would begin to try my patience.

This film makes sense as an Oscar winner for Best Picture. While many movie fans like to scoff and say that Goodfellas was more deserving, you have to understand how the Academy works. Dances with Wolves is sympathetic and empathetic with a downtrodden people. It helps to right some of the wrongs done to Native Americans over the years in cinema and television and challenges our notions of what is right, both historically and sociologically. Costner has crafted a thinking man’s Western that strives to be anything but a Western. That in and of itself makes Dances with Wolves a fantastic film to watch.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5