"You must vote, or you're nothing at all!"
In that moment, Sean Penn's portrayal of the impassioned cry from a typical hero left a lasting impact. Initially perceived as an uplifting propaganda piece celebrating American democracy, the film takes an unexpected turn in its latter half. Suddenly, it becomes a reflective exploration, peeling back the layers of a political giant's collapse. Rather than diminishing my interest, this shift adds a layer of complexity that intrigues me further.
The decline of political figures often involves a tangled web of money, status, and relationships, especially for someone of humble origins with political aspirations.
The term "ambition" fits aptly when describing the commoner of that time, as labeling it an "ideal" might be a stretch unless he possessed a philosopher-king mindset. It's worth noting that Plato, who introduced the concept of the philosopher-king, hailed from the aristocracy and adhered to the actual teachings of Socrates. His ideal involved spiritual love, a far cry from the character in the movie who seemed distant from such elevated thoughts.
Back then, one's background was directly proportional to the education they received. Due to his humble origins, his education could have been improved, leading to impulsive actions and a lack of the wisdom and means to balance various forces. His pride, lack of self-discipline, indulgence in women and power – these character flaws and spiritual limitations were fundamental reasons for his inevitable failure.
Shifting to his intellectual capabilities, let's explore his skills. They were far from the ideal candidate. Firstly, his prowess in public speaking was commendable, grounded in plain language that resonated with ordinary people. His speeches were relatable and inciting, tapping into societal pains and desires. While he successfully gained the trust of the masses, his speeches, no matter how compelling, couldn't compensate for his lack of the required ideological depth to lead effectively.
Secondly, his talent was digging up opponents' d
irty secrets and employing intimidation, coercion, and threats. This political maneuver is common but often leads to internal strife, becoming a narrow, self-destructive path. The movie deliberately highlights this aspect, emphasizing that such meaningless power struggles constitute the majority of politics, overshadowing the so-called ideals.
The movie portrays the political figure advocating for the redistribution of aristocratic wealth and power to the commoners. While advocating for equal rights for the lower class is just, the film focuses more on his opposition, a Chief Justice played by Anthony Hopkins. Despite being of the aristocracy, the Chief Justice appears more gentlemanly and cultured than the grassroots politician. This deliberate choice prompts the audience to question who truly represents justice. Is the aristocracy automatically unjust, or is every noble, regardless of being a moderate former governor or a rational and just Chief Justice, inevitably deemed unfair? This absolute categorization reflects irrationality, as pointed out by Tocqueville in "Democracy in America," highlighting the tyranny of the majority.
The world is nonlinear and complex, challenging perceptions of reality. The movie conveys a profound message – "The dike collapses from an ant's nest." The decline of anything has inherent reasons, which are fundamental. The political figure in the movie and other characters embody this complexity.
The young journalist, his two childhood friends, and the former governor's children, while unfortunate political casualties, also made rash decisions due to a failure to see the truth, bearing severe consequences. They may be seen as pitiful political pawns, but part of the blame lies in their personal choices.
Some interpret the three young individuals as representing truth, goodness, and beauty. This association is brilliant and resonates with me. Truth, integrity, and beauty all originate from the aristocracy, embodying pure idealists who sacrifice personal interests. However, they all become sacrifices in the power struggle. This fate is both resonant and deafening, emphasizing the mysterious allure of justice. If justice is easily attainable, can it still be called justice? This ending prompts reflection on the nature and difference between justice and the ideals of truth, goodness, and beauty, which are much more complex in reality than in Plato's "Republic."
Now, let's talk about Sean Penn's speech segments in the movie. They are passionate and fervent from start to finish, with similar content, facial expressions, eye contact, and body language. It may seem monotonous and lacking innovation, but labeling it as actor lethargy or out of character would be hasty.
This repetitiveness likely mirrors the real historical figure's actual demeanor, and Sean Penn's performance appears repetitive because it authentically aligns with the historical character. In politics, speeches are a performance, a personal show. The actual political figure won the people's support repeatedly using this method. This style was effective for him, pleasing the audience. Why would he change a speaking style that was "safe and effective"?
Even actors struggle to break out of their comfort zones during performances. Choosing the most effective presentation style is only natural for a politician facing speeches crucial to election results. By replicating this speaking style, he consistently gained voter support. His theatricality and wild roars appealed to the people's inner sentiments; he had to externalize their anger and desires. This might make Penn's seemingly unoriginal performance a deliberate choice by the creators, emphasizing the film's central theme – what you see might not be what it seems.
Share your thoughts!
Be the first to start the conversation.