Opening last weekend, The Campaign is the latest comedy from director Jay Roach. The film tells the story of North Carolina Congressman Cam Brady (played by Will Ferrell), a Democrat who will remind viewers of such previous party statesmen as John Edwards and Anthony Weiner. The complacent Brady has been in office for nearly a decade and he is regularly reelected without opposition. However, when Brady accidentally leaves an obscene message on a random family’s answering machine, the multimillionaire Motch brother (John Lithgow and Dan Ayrkroyd) see a chance to replace Brady with a congressman who will essentially belong to them. They recruit the naive and well-meaning Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis) to run against Brady. While Huggins is initially an awkward and unimpressive candidate, his image is soon transformed by a possibly demonic campaign manager (Dylan McDermott). As Huggins starts to move up in the polls, Brady reacts by having a nervous breakdown of his own and soon the campaign gets very personal as both Huggins and Brady go to increasingly outrageous lengths to win the election.
As a work of political satire, The Campaign is fairly uneven. This is largely because, while the film raises some valid points, those points are still the same points that have been made by hundreds of other films about the American political system. If you didn’t already know that the American political system was controlled by wealthy corporations before you saw The Campaign then you probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the first place. At its best, the film reminds us that both the Democrats and the Republicans pretty much answer to the same corporate masters. At its worst, the film’s “message” just feels like a stale and predictable lecture that one might hear while visiting an old Occupy camp site.
But if the film doesn’t quite come together as a satire, it does work wonderfully well as a comedy. Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis are two of the funniest guys around and they are at the top of their game in this film. Both of them bring such a sincerity to their absurd characters that even the most predictable of punchlines feel fresh and hilarious. Zach Galifianakis is surprisingly likable and earnest as the painfully sincere Marty. It’s no surprise to see Galifianakis playing someone who could charitably be described as a weirdo. However, Galifianakis also bring a gentleness of spirit to the role and it’s impossible not to root for him. Meanwhile, Will Ferrell not only manages to master a North Carolina accent but also manages to capture both the arrogance and the ignorance that’s necessary for a truly mediocre man to become a succesful politician.
However, the film’s best comedic performance comes from, believe it or not, Dylan McDermott. Playing a slick political operative who always dresses in black and who, occasionally, appears to be possessed by the devil, McDermott is a wonder to behold in this film. He steals every scene that he appears in and the prospect of his return alone should be reason enough for some brave film executive to greenlight The Campaign Part 2.
The Campaign works best when it’s content to simply make us laugh. When it attempts to make a serious statement about the state of American politics, the film often feels flat. But as a laugh-out-loud comedy, The Campaign is a definite winner.
Through the Shattered Lens 
“If you didn’t already know that the American political system was controlled by wealthy corporations before you saw “The Campaign” then you probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the first place…the film’s ”message” just feels like a stale and predictable lecture that one might hear while visiting an old Occupy camp site.”
Amusing yet valid observations, Lisa Marie. Speaking for myself, I’ve no intention of seeing this film–my soul groaned when I saw a television article for “The Campaign”. It’s a sign of our times that this silly slapstick full of walking cartoon caricatures is the sort of “political satire” that Hollywood churns out these days. And before anybody attempts to crucify me without having seen it–come on, get real. This isn’t a serious film by any means.
“…the arrogance and the ignorance that’s necessary for a truly mediocre man to become a succesful politician…”
Big problem right there. The mediocre man who becomes a successful politician–well, don’t most people already think of politicians as mediocrities by definition? Again, tell us something we don’t know, Modern Hollywood. Real-life politics is full of positively clueless clowns who stumble their way through a career.
Much more compelling is the bright, competent, yet humble idealist who enters politics–e.g. Bill McKay, played by Robert Redford in “The Candidate”, one of the great, hideously undervalued classics of Hollywood–only to find himself compromised by the dirty business of elections. Also, there was also a really good Australian picture released a few years ago, entitled “The Independent” that alas never really got off the ground, showing on only a handful of screens (and still difficult to find on DVD) that featured a genuinely dedicated, able-minded soul who attempted to hold onto his beliefs in his run for public office.
In any event, I wish more people would see “The Candidate”, a film that eschewed the slapstick approach but still delivered the laughs, along with a generous serving of socio-political commentary and a great sense of poignancy. The whole world of politics is being dumbed down, and its shows through Modern Hollywood.
LikeLike
(SPOILER ALERT)I’ve often wondered what a sequel to The Candidate would look like. Would Bill McKay still be in office, would he still be an idealist, and would he still be wondering “what do we do now?”
LikeLike
Geez, Lisa Marie, no spoiler warning for that one? Seriously, you might want to censor yourself there by editing your post.
There was this one person who would write letters to the major city newspaper, and not once, but TWICE, he managed to get letters published that gave away the ending of “The Candidate”. Both letters start of exactly the same way, by revealing the ending of “The Candidate”, just so the letter-writer could make some (redundant, blatantly obvious) “points” about politics.
Even worse was the editor who failed to prevent these letters from being printed. You know, I write letter to the newspapers and they aren’t printed. Someone write essentially the same letter twice, both times spoiling the end of “The Candidate”, and those brain surgeons who work at the paper think it’s worthwhile printing.
“The Candidate” isn’t “Casablanca” or “Gone with the Wind”, although I enjoy it more than both. Its ending is, relatively speaking, not that well known, and deserves to be protected. Because it’s a “competition” movie (what is the election result going to be?), people ought to be ultra-cautious when discussing it.
LikeLike
Problem corrected. 🙂
Sometimes, it’s easy to forget that not everyone has seen the same movies as I have. Or read the same books. I once had someone get very angry with me because I spoiled the ending of Romeo and Juliet for her. Seriously, she had no idea how that play ended. 🙂
LikeLike
This “spoiler alert” nonsense really , at some point, needs to chill. I mean, if you want a fresh look at ANYTHING, then don’t read a fucking review!! Guess what – *spoiler alert*!!! – we are all going to die someday! Should I tell my patients that when they walk in the door? “sorry, there’s really only so much I can do, you see…”
For gods sake, don’t freaking worry if you “ruined” The Candidate or Romeo and Juliet for one person who shall now be scarred for life! Just do the best you can – which you always do and is way more than good enough!!
Ok, unnecessary rant over…
(better than kicking a dog, right?)
🙂
LikeLike
The point being, Zeke, is that this is NOT a review about “The Candidate”, but a review about “The Campaign”–it just so happens that the thread went into a tangent about the former. We must be careful about those stumbling into it unwittingly.
C’mon, Zeke, “The Candidate” is a friggin’ great film. People deserve to discover the ending for themselves–and the ending is damn awesome, too. You can’t just disregard somebody’s right to enjoy a movie from start to finish. The first time I saw “The Candidate”, I would’ve been on the edge of my seat–IF I didn’t already knowing the final result. Fortunately, there’s more to the movie than just the final result, but really. “Not knowing” is most of the fun in a movie.
This reminds me of the time when I picked up a “Senses of Cinema” article, and I merely glanced at the front page for just a couple of seconds (I’m not sure if I even read it really, I just had a tired, idle peek), and in an isolated sentence set in quotation marks, i TOTALLY gave away the ending to “Knock on Any Door”–just a few minutes before the film started! I was pissed! All the way into the cinema, sat front row centre…and it’s another great film with a brilliant finish. Again, I would’ve been much more excited toward the ending if I HADN’T know what was about to happen.
Zeke, YOU may not care about spoiler-this, spoiler-that, but others do. As Lisa Marie shall tell you, movie watching is a very individual experience. Worker Joe earns his dollars and shuffles off to the cinema in the evening–let him have his fun.
Besides, the best reviews are one that can totally analyse and explain a film, make you REALLY eager to see it, but ultimately give away little if anything! Ken at “Le Cinema Dreams” is awesome at this!
LikeLike