Here’s the second of Best Picture nominations that someone referred to as a comedy that wasn’t. A friend and I caught sight of this trailer one afternoon, and I mentioned wanting to see it. He mentioned the movie was a comedy. I countered that I didn’t have the impression it was a comedy. No doubt we would have watched this with differing expectations. No doubt that would color our perception of the film. No doubt this colors how the movie has been received. And that’s a problem with the film. But I suspect the bigger problem with Vice has been its reach in its subject and object. It reaches far and vastly wide. But what it doesn’t do, even with that reach, is become a comedy.*
This movie has about a 50%, maybe 53% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And yet it’s in a list of eight for Best Picture of the year. Why? Well, the first is explained as it’s a harsh tongue-often-in-cheek tale of Dick Cheney and his rise to the role of VP. (Veep on HBO— now that is a comedy. I Laugh.Out.Loud. at those episodes.) And in case you did not figure this out, this isn’t an unbiased tale. For the latter point, though, it’s a superbly acted film (by the leads) with a craftily (even if not true) written script.
I truly don’t know much about Dick Cheney outside of small pieces of info publicized from 2000 – 2008. But I do have opinions about all that surrounded key issues during that administration. That said, I don’t think the movie was fair to the administration, my personal feelings aside. So the script for the film is mostly crafted to tell a tale to make a point. Actually, it’s told to make a lot of points. And that’s another part of the problem.
Like I’ve done with other biopics (and I don’t think its really fair to call this a biopic; it really is slanted), I looked up information after the film. Some things, the movie got right. Some things, the movie embellished. Somethings, the movie guessed. Some things were completely fabricated. This wasn’t just the rearranging of timelines like was done in Bohemian Rhapsody for artistic effect of the storytelling. This was connived. And when your subject (meaning here the slant of the subject) is this divisive (again, I’m reminded of another film of this award season about a move based in truth but greatly added to (i.e., BlacKkKlansman**)), the more you embellish and add to a story, the less likely those who most need to hear a message within the story will hear it.
It is that vast reach of the film that creates problems to me. As the writers embellish the story, they do so in a wide approach. The message is so all over the place that the key points in Cheney’s life that might strike a chord with more than half the population are watered down like see-through black tea. He’s made to look so power-hungry throughout his entire time after Lynne’s dressing-down that when he really pushes that power, it’s almost impotent on the viewer. I mean, maybe he was always that power hungry. I don’t know. But by the time we got to the Iraq War in the film, I was tired of the tale of how awful Cheney was.
Remember my notes after watching A Star is Born about how lovely a time it was to watch the film as you wanted everyone to come out on top? It’s not that way with Vice. In fact, for a large portion of the population, many people would find difficulty liking anyone portrayed in Vice. (Well, that is, other than Mary Cheney. She is (no doubt purposefully) painted under highly favorable lighting.) But after two hours of watching people you’re not cheering for at all, you come away tired. A little bitter. A lot sad. And not highly entertained.
On to that acting – – Christian Bale’s transformation into the Cheney we all saw as VP is art in motion. He not only becomes Cheney; he consumes him. That said, I don’t think it’s enough to eclipse Rami Malek’s performance as Freddie Mercury. I think most of us could cheer for Mercury as portrayed on the screen, even when he was at his cattiest (no pun intended). Cheering for Bale as Cheney? First, a large portion of the population simply isn’t going to cheer for Cheney at all. Another large portion will be bitter at this portrayal of Cheney. Bale as Cheney doesn’t wipe that away. This isn’t to say we can never have a Best Actor portray a character many people don’t like. But this is too hot a button right now. Too soon? No. But too current (of a political divide)? Yes.
Amy Adams plays Lynne Cheney, Dick’s wife, over the course of almost fifty years. And as always, Amy Adams impresses me. Here, she drips cunning and calculating off the clothes of Lynne Cheney that you almost want to shower after her scenes. Adams is a FAR cry from that princess she’s been before. And her portrayal punches me in the gut about how powerful people can be who we never elect into office. Is Adams’s acting a representation of Lynne Cheney? I don’t know. Is it calculated? I don’t know. Is it a caricature? I don’t know. Does it evoke a sense of foreboding ick? It does. And for that, I credit Amy Adams.
Don’t get me wrong. I liked the movie. (This is the kind of film I struggle with on stars. A more accurate star rating here would be 3.6. But I round up; ergo, we have 4 here.) I didn’t like the turns the administration took that Cheney was VP for, and I greatly am troubled by the war we wound up in based on that. So for me, I was not the side of the audience that would be offended by his portrayal. In fact, I appreciated that telling. (But let’s be real: I bet a lot of those folks who disagreed didn’t see the film.) Further, I greatly appreciated Bale’s and Adams’s performances. As for doing what the screenwriters set out to do, it did it, even if in too wide an approach.
Walking away, I reminded my movie companion that every administration has secrets. (Other than what I looked up to learn was wholly made up), We don’t know what’s true from the film and what was embellished. And it’s essential that we, as members of society, don’t just take the film at face value but question its message and its method of sending its message. It’s essential that all of us do that for everything that we see and read. And I refuse to watch Vice and celebrate in its over-the-top telling of the story of Cheney – – – even if I think a lot of it probably is a legitimate portrayal. But I will celebrate it as a great vehicle for Bale’s and Adams’s performances. And yes, I also appreciate the too-often-tongue-in-cheek portrayal. Come on – – I’m still who I am. 😉
*Yes, Vice was entered in the comedy category for Best Picture for the Golden Globes (it didn’t win). But I suspect that was because it couldn’t call itself a drama, and it had to choose one or the other. And okay, sure, this easily could be called a dark comedy. But anyone who knows me knows I’m much too literal. If a movie is going to be a dark comedy, it needs that adjective of “dark” in its description; otherwise, I hear only “comedy.” And if I hear a movie is a comedy, I expect it to make me laugh out loud. A lot. I laughed out loud loudly during Vice only at the mock ending midway through. I found that twist clever and funny (fabulously clever), knowing the movie makers were playing with the audience. Otherwise, this is not, in any sense, a (non adjective) comedy.
**BlacKkKlansman did this better. Or maybe I’m much more open to attacking racists and racism with embellishment than I am the intricacies of governing leaders when we don’t know enough. And I don’t think we’ll ever know enough.