Ides of March is really three films fused together. The first is a character story of the behind the scenes players in a hotly contested Presidential Primary. The second is a political wrong-doing pot-boiler. The third is a birth of cynicism character shift. The three parts never came together. Instead you have great actors in a film that has one great part and two not-so-great parts.
Ides of March is based on the character types in the life of Julius Caesar (most famously told by William Shakespeare). We are exposed to subterfuge, tragedy, and betrayal. But the assassinations are limited to those of character.
Ides of March contains some pretty heavy acting chops and they do not disappoint.
George Clooney is his normal ever squinty-eyed romantic-devil. As Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Morris, the glint in his eye is both charismatic and reassuring. It leaves little wonder that some speculate that he ought to run for political office. His presence as an actor is limited, although he did write and direct the film.
Philip Seymour Hoffman is as fantastic as ever as Morris’s paranoid and untrusting campaign manager Paul Zara. He is unabashedly stubborn and loves to throw his weight around.
Paul Giamatti is again excellent as the neurotic and devious campaign manager for Morris’s primary challenger. He drips with cynicism.
Marisa Tomei continues with the resurrection of her career in another strong performance. Her portrayal of the press is both cruel and measured.
We are also presented with further evidence that this may be the year of the Gosling (Drive and Crazy, Stupid, Love). Ryan Gosling shines as the hard-working and idealistic Morris campaigner Stephen Meyers. There is an ease to his performance and he is believable in his various incarnations.
I think the film would have been better served by focusing on these characters. Giving us more depth. Presenting strong interactions. Seeing them as deeply flawed and representative of different views and approaches to politics. This was the element of the film I most enjoyed.
The second phase was a strange pot-boiler. The elements in this part of the film seem hurried and unnecessarily complicated. I do not want to ruin the story so I will avoid explication, but this section has two driving points. The first is an absolutely trite send up of the inappropriate conduct of politicians. The second is rather devious but convoluted. This section of the film seemed too easy. Harping on the evils of the campaign trail is almost self-evident at this point.
The final phase was the transformation of an idealist to a cynic. The transition occurs very quickly. The impetus for the change seems appropriate but in the end I felt like it was heavy-handed.
We already live in a society where cynicism about politics is rampant. I am not sure that highlighting that politics is filled with cynics is really necessary. Do not get me wrong, the performances in this transition were strong. I am just not sure that the message was necessary.
I guess part of me longs for a Jefferson Smith or an Atticus Finch. Frankly, I would have been satisfied with the transition if the pot-boiler was handled better. Cynicism is not always brought by massive upheaval.
The film may have been better served by cutting it up into three different films. Or maybe the second element could have been improved to make the third element function. Or maybe the film needed to be longer. I am not sure. But I wanted some change.
The acting in the film is tremendous. Some of the cuts and use of music are inspired. I just felt that as a complete project it was at times lacking.
PARSI VERDICT: Beware: terrific acting with a plot that was at times forced and disjointed made for an uneven film that is still worth watching.