“Without Loyalty…”

The Ides of March is an adaptation of Farragut North, a good play about political operatives that I saw performed a couple of years ago at the Geffen with Chris Pine and Chris Noth. Ryan Gosling and Phillip Seymour Hoffman play these parts, respectively, in the film. George Clooney‘s presidential candidate was created for the film.

31 thoughts on ““Without Loyalty…”

  1. Alboone on said:

    Clooney is probably the most boring director working today. The only energy I found in his directing career was Confession of a Dangerous Mind. The movie wasn’t any good, but the aesthetics of it were really impressive. Everything he’s done after that has just been painfully boring. They’re well intentioned, but there’s no juice to his work. I will not be surprised if this crashes like a led ballon.

    Considering the political climate we’re in do you really think adults will carry any interest in seeing politcal operatives work the system? HELL NO!!!

  2. Man. What a stretch of films Gosling is having.

    I am a sucker for this kind of film. It is Clooney doing what he’s doing because he can. He seems to fancy himself as a kind of Redford from the day. I am happy somebody is doing it.

  3. Yes, so am I. Somebody has to man up and be the 21st Century Robert Redford — the thoughtful, skillful, tasteful bringer of adult political dramas and whatnot — and Clooney is to be commended for filling that role, and working his ass off to fulfill that potential.

  4. If Good Night, and Good Luck. is considered boring than let the snoozefest commence. Clooney is one of the few guys who movie in, movie out, makes movies for thinking adults. Bravo.

  5. In terms of grown-up political drama, Clooney is definitely working to match the acting Redford of “The Candidate” and “All the President’s Men.” He’s already surpassed the directing Redford. (I guess “Quiz Show” could be considered a drama about larger political intrigue; I don’t know about Redford’s more recent efforts.)

    In any case, I’m looking forward to this. Alexander Payne and Paul Thomas Anderson should take lessons from Clooney on how to be more prolific while keeping up the quality. Maybe the difference is that they are trying to make Art, while Clooney (and this is not a slam) is trying to make serious, solid entertainment.

  6. I am sort of intrigued now at how much adding the candidate as a lead will change the dynamics of the film version versus the play. How can anyone not be pleased that Clooney is using his clout to make intelligent adult dramas? This is why you make Batman and Robin and 3 Ocean’s 11 movies. Good trailer, but I was already in.

  7. George Clooney’s presidential candidate was created for the film.

    And for those who saw the play, how the hell does this work?

    Wished they kept the title. Would have nicely confused all the people who call NYC and L.A. home.

  8. Los Bostonian: The Ocean’s movies are in no way comparable to Batman & Robin. I know it’s become trendy to shit on them recently, but the first one is excellent, the second one incredibly stylish (hamstrung severely by that idiotic Julia Roberts in-joke), and the third one has a sort of surreal charm at times – the weird Mexican factory subplot, etc. They’re pretty entertaining stuff. And I’d rather watch Ocean’s Eleven than the Men who Stare at Goats.

  9. This movie looks boring. I saw The American for the first time a few nights ago. I loved it. It gave the audience a resolution they wanted while the filmmakers still were allowed to make a very non-Hollywood choice for the fate of the character and it was beautifully done.

  10. To say that George Clooney, who I like, is in any way a better director than Paul Thomas Anderson is ridiculous. Sorry.

  11. I only meant that Clooney was more prolific. Anderson is a great director, maybe the best American director working today. “There Will Be Blood” is one of the few recent movies that felt like an instant classic. I just wish he would or could make more movies.

  12. Owen,

    Oh. I think I misunderstood. I thought you were infering that PTA was “too arty” whereas Clooney’s films were more “accessible.”

    My fault, sorry.

    But also, as far as being “prolific,” I don’t think Clooney has made many more films than PTA during the same span of time. I think Clooney has directed four (Confessions, Good Night and Good Luck, Leatherheads – or whatever it was called, and now Ides of March) to PTA’s three (Punch Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood and now The Master). I think all of PTA’s films were better than Clooney’s. I just think PTA is more of a perfectionist type.

  13. Absolutely right, dogcatcher, he’s a great perfectionist, and as I was saying to someone in a previous comment, I wish there was some way to speed him up so we could have more! A quick IMDb look-up says that he’s directed two full-length films since 2002 to Clooney’s four, which is what I mean. And Clooney probably seems more prolific than he is because he also stars in solid dramas that are barely distinguishable in style from his own, like “Michael Clayton.”

  14. Clooney is not more prolific than PTA as a director.

    Both have managed to direct a movie every 3 years. That’s their average gap between directing gigs.

  15. I think this looks great. And FUCK ME what a cast this has! I’m super excited about it.

    (insert shoe ads here)

    Clooney is the man, and I’ve always been a fan of Ryan Gosling. This film is bursting with awards-caliber actors!

  16. >Wasn’t this already done with Bob Roberts?

    The play’s well written. Dunno about the movie. It’s nothing like Bob Roberts unless all political movies are by definition the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>