I chose to address the movie The Ides of March not only because I thought it was absolutely brilliant, but I thought it possessed to excellent examples of rhetoric in our culture: the rhetoric surrounding capital punishment and, from the standpoint of the overall movie, an intriguing rhetoric about the sacrifice of idealism in the modern political landscape.
In the movie, campaign adviser (2nd in command) Stephen Myers works on the promising campaign of Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris. A consummate idealist at heart, Meyers believes Morris is the perfect candidate to fix what is wrong with America and usher in a new era of politics. Gov. Morris is entrenched in a battle for the Democratic nomination in the battleground state of Ohio. Over the course of the movie, the nature of the current political landscape forces Meyers to betray his idealism and become more pragmatic, less ethical, in accomplishing his goals.
Gov. Mike Morris, although quite flawed as a character, is rather emblematic of the political views of co-writer/director George Clooney, who portrays him on screen. Early in the movie, Gov. Mike Morris engages in an exchange during an interview in regard to his opposition to the death penalty (**The dialogue is taken from the screenplay, not from the movie itself. I apologize for any discrepancies):
Charlie Rose:
But you’re against the death penalty?
Governor Morris:
Yes. Because of what it says
about us as a society.
Charlie Rose:
Suppose Governor it was your wife…
Governor Morris:
And she was murdered, what would I do.
Charlie Rose:
It gets more complicated when it’s personal.
Governor Morris:
Sure…well if I could get to him I’d find a way to kill him.
Charlie Rose:
So you, you Governor would impose the death penalty.
Governor Morris:
No, I would commit a crime for which I would happily go to jail.
Charlie Rose:
Then why not let society do that?
Governor Morris:
Because society has to be better
than the individual. If I were to do
that I would be wrong.
Charlie Rose:
And what about guns?
Governor Morris:
Isn’t it time for a commercial. (emphasis mine)
Although a fictitious interview, Clooney uses a rather common objection to the death penalty: the "what if it were you?" objection. Through the dialogue, it becomes quite apparent that Gov. Morris not only anticipated this objection, but he was already prepared to refute it. He cuts Rose off before he can even finish his "Suppose Governor it was your wife..." statement and immediately finishes the statement--he knew it was coming.
Interestingly, he uses this hypothetical as a platform to concede that he would in fact seek vengeance. Although this might appear counterproductive, it allows him to establish his claim "Because society has to be better than the individual." In our readings, it was contended that rhetoric "first and foremost...established claims where no clear truth was available" (1-2). Since arguments surrounding the use of the death penalty are moral and ethical in nature, they have no absolute, true answer. Thus, Gov. Morris uses the hypothetical to distinguish between individual action and societal action, claiming that society has a higher moral responsibility than the individual. Although I am rather bias in regard to this matter (I'm an adamant opponent of the death penalty), I think even advocates of capital punishment must admit that his rhetoric is quite effective here. He anticipates his opponent and provides a claim that his audience (the American public) can concur with; he admits that as an individual he would seek justice (something many married men would agree with) but that this is not an ethical act and, furthermore, entirely immoral for a society.
The overall movie is also highly rhetorical. In spite of Myers idealism, events transpire that cause him to make unethical compromises. Duffy, the opponents campaign manager, asks for a meeting with Myers. He offers Myers the chance to work on the Pullman campaign, which Meyers declines. Yet, unknown to Myers, Duffy had no intention of hiring him: he leaks the meeting to a reporter, making it public, knowing that Gov. Morris' campaign manager, Paul Zara, values loyalty above anything else. Zara immediately fires Myers from the campaign.
Earlier in the film, Myers had a romantic affair with an intern--an intern he later discovers Gov. Morris was also involved with and impregnated. Molly is not only an intern but also the daughter of the DNC chairman. Myers gives her money for an abortion but, being fired as she is getting the procedure, never picks her up. Molly, betrayed by both men, takes her own life.
Although he feels guilty, Myers uses what he knows to extort Gov. Morris, demanding that Morris not only make him the new campaign manager, but also that Gov. Morris endorse Thompson, a powerful politician who has the delegates to end the primary and make Morris the Democratic nominee (Gov. Morris does not like Thompson nor want to endorse him). Myers, however, still believes he is acting in the country's best interest:
Stephen: Paul’s
gone today. I set a meeting with you and
Thompson where you promise him the ticket.
You get three hundred and fifty-six pledged delegates, you get North
Carolina, and then you take office and
make right what so many have made wrong.
All the things we both believe in. (emphasis mine)
Myers compromises his morals and ethics for what he deems the greater good--getting Morris into office. The Ides of March, in a way, is rather effective at persuading the viewing audience that to succeed in the modern political climate, true idealism cannot be victorious. Politics requires compromising our values and ideals.
Interestingly, after seeing the movie, I had a questionable reaction. Placing myself in this fictitious world, I contemplated whether, knowing about the lack of character of Gov. Morris, would I still vote for him? After thinking it over and being honest with myself, I concluded, alarmingly, yes. To affect positive changes, I would be willing to elect Gov. Morris. In that manner, I would compromise my values and ethics much like Stephen Myers did. In the end, I believe The Ides of March was written to make us aware of, and critically reflect upon, those compromises.
Here is a link to the final scene of the movie, where Stephen is forced to contemplate what he has done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N3GvSI3ziY
No comments:
Post a Comment