Don't "beware the Ides of March"

The Ides of march (from dictionary.com): March 15 in the ancient Roman calendar; the day in 44 b.c. on which Julius Caesar was assassinated.

.

Obviously, the naming of the new George Clooney directed movie, The Ides of March, is not coincidental with the subject matter. The death of Julius Caesar was borne of a conspiracy and by its very nature was political. Ostensibly, he was killed because the senators feared the march toward tyranny and the end of the Senate. Ironically, it was his death that did just that. They compromised principles to do what they believed was in the best interest of the republic.

While there is no assassination in The Ides of March, there is plenty of political intrigue and the compromising of principles in the name of idealism.

Ryan Gosling's character Stephen Myers, a campaign manager for Clooney's character, governor Mike Morris goes into the campaign full of idealism and believing the man he is working for has that same idealism. Through the machinations of the film, the integrity of Morris and the political process is called into question and leads to Myers' loss of innocence. He is faced with the quandary of opting out altogether or scheming for what he perceives as the greater good. Does he make the right choice and how can it really be for the "greater good" if one compromises one's principles? Don't expect the movie to answer that question.

There's no "happy ending". Along with the fucked up political process it represents, the movie ends ambiguously.

When we start down the road of compromising and selling our soul, when do we lose ourselves?

The casting is good. Gosling is believable as a slick and confident pitch man for a candidate. If anything, he comes across as too slick and you have a hard time buying that he would have a crisis of conscience. Clooney is Clooney. Because of his ideas and charisma, you wish that he would actually run for office.

But the actors that steal the show are the vets, Paul Giamati as the opponent's lead adviser and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Morris' adviser. Would we really expect any less from a couple of Oscar winners? They have the unique talent to be perfectly cast in whatever they play because they are just that good. Jeffrey Wright is also outstanding.

Clooney is very clever in making the candidates in question Democrats. It removes a lot of the tendency by the Right to write off the movie as another example of Hollywood liberal propaganda. Clooney rightly sees the larger point that the problem is the process and not necessarily the political ideas involved. There is no moral high ground when it comes to behavior of the two major parties' campaigns.

This is by no means a "great" political thriller. It would not be mistaken for All the President's Men or The Candidate or even The Contender. But it is good and topical. Grade: B

Michael Clayton

Expertly written and cast, Michael Clayton is all that you would want in a legal thriller. Part Grisham, part Erin Brockovich. The dialogue is sharp and technical, but not so much that it loses you.

The title character, played by George Clooney, is a "fixer" in a law firm. A "fixer" is an attorney who cleans up messes and gives clients a dose of reality in places where others might try to sugar coat it. He is called in to "fix" one of the firm's own attorneys, a character played exceptionally by Tom Wilkinson. That character is portrayed by the firm as having went crazy, while he maintains he's only had a "moment of clarity". He's been the lead attorney defending a large agricultural corporation who apparently has knowingly hid information damaging to them.

Wilkinson's character's moment of clarity is the realization that he has used the last 9 years of his life defending a company that is knowingly making people get sick and die. A realization long overdue, obviously, and not taken well by the firm who have received hundreds of millions of dollars in fees or by the agricultural company who see the publicity nightmare looming.

Michael Clayton is sent to talk him out of his change of heart but ends up having one of his own. The story works because all of the characters are real and flawed.

The movie is very appealing because it makes the viewer think about their own lives and the choices he/she makes. We all have these moments of clarity. My last major one led to my quitting a management job in a great company and branching out on my own. I'm about due for another.

We may have these moments and choose not to act on them. It's when you get older and keep ignoring those clarion calls, that you slowly lose your integrity and your soul. It becomes easier and easier to lose every bit of humanity that you may once have had. Don't keep thinking there will be a better opportunity or a more convenient time to do the right thing. Right now is the right time to do the right thing.

It's all well and good to decide on changing your life. Frequently we don't have the luxury of being able to afford a change, financially or otherwise. But, how can we afford not to?

What are each of us worth? How much will it take for us to turn the other way, to subvert our integrity? Really, we're all sell-outs. If someone else pays you to do something ... you are selling out. Whores, basically. But, hopefully, we're prostituting ourselves for some greater good. How we are defined as people is largely determined by where we draw the line.

We can frequently rationalize the things that a company we work for does. One person is just a small cog in the machinery ... or so we think. If we knowingly work, buy goods from, or promote a company that is immoral, illegal, unethical, then aren't we just as culpable? Aren't we giving tacit approval with our silence? It is our responsibility as workers to call out our employers when necessary just as it is our responsibility as citizens to call out our government when necessary. Loyalty and patriotism are hollow words if we are propping up unethical people.

I'm not talking about quitting your jobs and joining the Peace Corps. I'm just saying keep your eyes open. It's not about agreeing with everything your co-workers and bosses say, politically or otherwise. People of good conscience can disagree ... and that's OK. But if somebody is being unethical or is endangering someone else, if you look the other way, you might as well be an accomplice.

It's with no apparent sense of irony that I start this discussion after just a couple of days ago telling you about all the perks that I get working for certain people. I believe those are borne out of satisfaction with a job well done, not with any kind of quid pro quo. I've turned down clients who I had ethical concerns about.

Reviewing this movie appears to have been an excuse for me to lecture ... sorry about that. I really liked the movie. Clooney is on an incredible roll. His career right now is a model of what I would hope to do in my own field -- work on projects that mean something, that are provocative and intelligent. When not doing those projects, have fun, do no harm, and make money that will allow you to make more meaningful projects. Grade: A

"This is not a psychotic breakdown; it's a cleansing moment of clarity." -- Peter Finch as Howard Beale in Network