The Candidate, 1972, was a film that really made me think. It takes you through Bill McKay's campaign for California senator - and shows how an idealistic and inexperienced young man gets trapped by the media system. Most plot summaries will tell you that it is about how he gives the political system a kick - but I found that it was really more about how he became lost in it. It seemed that it was more of an 'outside' movie than an 'inside' one - there is always some mystery about what is going on inside everyone's heads. Robert Redford is really very good here as McKay - watch for a speech he makes to himself in the car. Peter Boyle also gave a thought-provoking performance, as Bill McKay's smooth-talking campaign manager. A sad commentary on the way things work. Very relevant. I recommend it for fans of Robert Redford or anybody interested in politics or media. 7 out of 10.
86 Reviews
Ahead of its time
Sober-Friend24 February 2018
This 1972 feature film is funny as it is scary now in the Untied States we can see it as form of prophecy.
This film stars Robert Redford in a remarkable performance as a Senatorial Candidate in California. Robert plays Bill McKay as son of a former state senator who never planned on running for public office. In fact he has never registered to vote. A political election specialist talks him into running who is expertly played by the late Peter Boyle. What both Bill McKay never thinks of at the beginning is the fact he might win. Released in 1972 the film seemed as a farce but just like the 1976 film "Network" what once seemed impossible is now "non fiction".
Natalie Wood also appears as herself.
This film stars Robert Redford in a remarkable performance as a Senatorial Candidate in California. Robert plays Bill McKay as son of a former state senator who never planned on running for public office. In fact he has never registered to vote. A political election specialist talks him into running who is expertly played by the late Peter Boyle. What both Bill McKay never thinks of at the beginning is the fact he might win. Released in 1972 the film seemed as a farce but just like the 1976 film "Network" what once seemed impossible is now "non fiction".
Natalie Wood also appears as herself.
Sort of like what it would be like to hang out with a political candidate throughout the election.
planktonrules30 January 2015
"The Candidate" is a very simple movie. It follows a guy (Robert Redford) who is running for the Senate and you see him from agreeing to run to his eventual election. Throughout, the guy tries (not always successfully) to keep his idealism but there is a strong push by his handlers to get him to talk more and say less at the same time. This aspect of the story is very believable and this man is, more or less, relatively 'normal' and without any earth-shattering secrets or personal deficiencies. In fact, the film has little in the way of excitement--no 'bombshells', no real controversies--just a look at the political process and the men who handle these candidates. Certainly not a must-see film but well worth your time.
Not bad
rmax30482315 April 2004
Michael Ritchie seems to have this thing for competition -- whether downhill racing, body building, water skiing, or, as here, politics. This isn't my favorite human motive, besting other people, so this one comes as a rather pleasant surprise, laden as it is with more social and political content than the with the details of the quest. I mean -- Redford doesn't even want the office!
"The Candidate" has the appearance of a made-for-TV movie. The credits are presented simply, as in a TV movies. There is no underscore but the music that we hear consists of marches with lots of drums and sometimes one or two instruments hitting clinkers, as they would on a bandstand behind a speaker.
The photography is highly colored and flat, as in a TV movie. Everybody seems to be dressed in suits or riding costumes. They look overly made up, freshly preened and pruned. They drive big new American cars and live in splendidly arid modern homes. In short they appear to lead the kind of lives to which naive screenwriters aspire.
That out of the way, this is a pretty brave movie. It's a story of an innocent and blunt lawyer who become progressively corrupted during the campaign as victory seems more nearly in his grasp and the grasp of his managers. They 86 his sideburns and give him a haircut and put him in expensive suits. Girls love him because he displays such, well, such Robert Redfordness. One guy belts him in the mouth at a rally and I can understand why. All men as handsome as Robert Redford should be illegal.
But he does a decent job in his minimal way. His forte lies in little moves, as when he cocks his head and says quizzically, "Eh"? Everybody else is quite good too, though his wife is mostly decorative. Peter Boyle is fine, and Allan Garfinkle is always believable as a cynical scuzz.
You have to admire the way the script does not spare Redford's character. He may be an idealist at first. What does he think of abortion? "I'm for it." How about property taxes. "I don't know." By the end of the movie he's learned fluent politicospeak. How's he feel about busing? "You can't solve the problems of this country with a bus." (Right.) He knows that he's selling himself out but he wants to WIN.
As the campaign gets into high gear he's late for a meeting with a labor leader, a grizzled Kenneth Toby given to smoking pinched little cigarettes. Everybody in the room is wondering where Redford is, and how he can treat an important man like Toby with such disrespect. And where is he? We see the door to a hotel room open and there emerges a girl so gorgeous that if she were an escort instead of a groupie she'd be extremely expensive. A few seconds later Redford comes out buttoning his jacket.
Nothing much is made of this incident. Boyle watches this parade in the hallway, staring after the girl, but nobody says anything and the scene lasts for only a few seconds. And here is where Ritchie and the writers earn my respect. Think of how easily this very effective scene could have been demolished. Boyle stopping the groupie and demanding to know what's been going on. Boyle admonishing Redford for cheating on his wife -- "If this ever gets out our goose is cooked!" Redford protesting that his private life is his own business.
But none of this happens. Not in this scene or in any of the others in which a piece of character is revealed. Ritchie trusts in the perspicacity of the viewer. He shows us, because he doesn't have to tell us. He figures we're smart enough to pick up this clues by ourselves. Thank you, Mister Ritchie.
We should be grateful to the writer as well, and to Redford's improvisational talents, when, alone in a car's rear seat, half crazed, he mangles the stump speech he's given a thousand times and comes up with a hilarious parody: "The basic indifference that made this country great."
Also admirable is that the movie deals with specific issues -- abortion, busing, unemployment, fire hazard, health concerns -- and Redford is the Democratic candidate while Don Porter is the Republican candidate (imagine actually NAMING the political parties and risking losing half the audience).
Porter comes across like an actor, an old ham of an actor, which suits the part. He's smooth and wily at seducing the public, a kind of Don Juan of the political arena. Ritchie has taken some real chances here. Porter comes up with something like, "Oh, sure, when I was a kid we were all poor too. Why some of us didn't even have our own SOCIAL WORKER."
It took guts to make this movie. And talent to make it so well.
"The Candidate" has the appearance of a made-for-TV movie. The credits are presented simply, as in a TV movies. There is no underscore but the music that we hear consists of marches with lots of drums and sometimes one or two instruments hitting clinkers, as they would on a bandstand behind a speaker.
The photography is highly colored and flat, as in a TV movie. Everybody seems to be dressed in suits or riding costumes. They look overly made up, freshly preened and pruned. They drive big new American cars and live in splendidly arid modern homes. In short they appear to lead the kind of lives to which naive screenwriters aspire.
That out of the way, this is a pretty brave movie. It's a story of an innocent and blunt lawyer who become progressively corrupted during the campaign as victory seems more nearly in his grasp and the grasp of his managers. They 86 his sideburns and give him a haircut and put him in expensive suits. Girls love him because he displays such, well, such Robert Redfordness. One guy belts him in the mouth at a rally and I can understand why. All men as handsome as Robert Redford should be illegal.
But he does a decent job in his minimal way. His forte lies in little moves, as when he cocks his head and says quizzically, "Eh"? Everybody else is quite good too, though his wife is mostly decorative. Peter Boyle is fine, and Allan Garfinkle is always believable as a cynical scuzz.
You have to admire the way the script does not spare Redford's character. He may be an idealist at first. What does he think of abortion? "I'm for it." How about property taxes. "I don't know." By the end of the movie he's learned fluent politicospeak. How's he feel about busing? "You can't solve the problems of this country with a bus." (Right.) He knows that he's selling himself out but he wants to WIN.
As the campaign gets into high gear he's late for a meeting with a labor leader, a grizzled Kenneth Toby given to smoking pinched little cigarettes. Everybody in the room is wondering where Redford is, and how he can treat an important man like Toby with such disrespect. And where is he? We see the door to a hotel room open and there emerges a girl so gorgeous that if she were an escort instead of a groupie she'd be extremely expensive. A few seconds later Redford comes out buttoning his jacket.
Nothing much is made of this incident. Boyle watches this parade in the hallway, staring after the girl, but nobody says anything and the scene lasts for only a few seconds. And here is where Ritchie and the writers earn my respect. Think of how easily this very effective scene could have been demolished. Boyle stopping the groupie and demanding to know what's been going on. Boyle admonishing Redford for cheating on his wife -- "If this ever gets out our goose is cooked!" Redford protesting that his private life is his own business.
But none of this happens. Not in this scene or in any of the others in which a piece of character is revealed. Ritchie trusts in the perspicacity of the viewer. He shows us, because he doesn't have to tell us. He figures we're smart enough to pick up this clues by ourselves. Thank you, Mister Ritchie.
We should be grateful to the writer as well, and to Redford's improvisational talents, when, alone in a car's rear seat, half crazed, he mangles the stump speech he's given a thousand times and comes up with a hilarious parody: "The basic indifference that made this country great."
Also admirable is that the movie deals with specific issues -- abortion, busing, unemployment, fire hazard, health concerns -- and Redford is the Democratic candidate while Don Porter is the Republican candidate (imagine actually NAMING the political parties and risking losing half the audience).
Porter comes across like an actor, an old ham of an actor, which suits the part. He's smooth and wily at seducing the public, a kind of Don Juan of the political arena. Ritchie has taken some real chances here. Porter comes up with something like, "Oh, sure, when I was a kid we were all poor too. Why some of us didn't even have our own SOCIAL WORKER."
It took guts to make this movie. And talent to make it so well.
Well done, still resonates today
oshram-38 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Redford plays Bill McKay, a crusading lawyer who happens to be the son of a former governor of California, a fact he plays down. When incumbent Republican Crocker Jarmon (Don Porter) is running for his umpteenth term in the senate, kingmaker Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle) decides to tap Bill as a wild, dark horse candidate. While young McKay is initially suspicious and unwilling, Lucas tells him he can do whatever he likes and say whatever he likes on the campaign trail because no one expects him to win. With that freedom in mind, McKay sets off to run a very different style of campaign.
The acting here is all top notch. Redford, a natural for the cameras, manages to make McKay fairly awkward and uncomfortable in the early going, but as he warms to being what a candidate is all about, he takes to the campaign trail amazingly well. Boyle is also excellent as the kind of old bastard it always takes to win one of these races, the political insider every race needs to smooth over the opposition within the party and crucify those without. Porter is also good as Jarmon, showing a stiff, wooden, conservative incumbent who must have seemed hopelessly out of date in 1972 -- especially considering his dashing, youthful opposition -- but who also sounds oddly like any politician in office today, with his talk of loving America and supporting business.
The movie makes a very keen point about what people have to do to get elected, and we see a slow whittling of McKay's priorities as he must sacrifice his principles one by one in order to get elected. By the end of the campaign, the fresh-faced, honest young man we were introduced to at the start is gone, replaced by a slick image who is all things to all people. To be fair McKay fights this process, but the movie makes a strong point that, simply, this is what is required in order to win. The end note -- McKay asking Lucas "What do we do now?" is both telling and chilling, that even thirty years ago, there was such distrust and distaste for politics and what it did to people (and this was a year *before* Watergate). The Candidate still plays well despite some dated material, and the lessons it offers about politics and what it does to people still apply today. This is a film well worth your time investigating.
The acting here is all top notch. Redford, a natural for the cameras, manages to make McKay fairly awkward and uncomfortable in the early going, but as he warms to being what a candidate is all about, he takes to the campaign trail amazingly well. Boyle is also excellent as the kind of old bastard it always takes to win one of these races, the political insider every race needs to smooth over the opposition within the party and crucify those without. Porter is also good as Jarmon, showing a stiff, wooden, conservative incumbent who must have seemed hopelessly out of date in 1972 -- especially considering his dashing, youthful opposition -- but who also sounds oddly like any politician in office today, with his talk of loving America and supporting business.
The movie makes a very keen point about what people have to do to get elected, and we see a slow whittling of McKay's priorities as he must sacrifice his principles one by one in order to get elected. By the end of the campaign, the fresh-faced, honest young man we were introduced to at the start is gone, replaced by a slick image who is all things to all people. To be fair McKay fights this process, but the movie makes a strong point that, simply, this is what is required in order to win. The end note -- McKay asking Lucas "What do we do now?" is both telling and chilling, that even thirty years ago, there was such distrust and distaste for politics and what it did to people (and this was a year *before* Watergate). The Candidate still plays well despite some dated material, and the lessons it offers about politics and what it does to people still apply today. This is a film well worth your time investigating.
Bill McKay, a WASP "pezzonovante" ...
ElMaruecan8223 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
For the non-experts, "pezzonovante" is a direct reference to the Sicilian word used in "The Godfather" to describe a senator, governor, or any upstarts or ambitious newcomer on the political field (basically, what Vito Corleone wanted for his son, Michael)
I chose this title because in 1973, the two Oscars for Best Screenplay went to "The Godfather" and "The Candidate". Although they play in different leagues, both screenplays bear interesting similarities through the implicit statements they make about the limits of the American Dream and the ideals that supposedly forged it. Indeed, no matter how charismatic they are, there's something rotten in a country that allows such figures as Michael Corleone and Bill McKay to succeed.
My judgment might be severe but it's a credit to Robert Redford's extraordinary performance. Sometimes, we're put in the electors' shoes and see him like a handsome and idealistic patriot, eager to raise the voice of American social outcasts and sometimes we remember, as parts of the sideshow, that these are the very reasons he was picked by his friend, Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle) to represent the Democrat party despite his blatant lack of experience.
And what's the catch for McKay? The film reveals its cynical and interesting premise when Boyle writes in a matchbox his only guarantee: "you will lose". The point of his candidature is not to undermine a Democrat potential leader's career and yet provide a realistic opponent to the Republican, the much popular Crocker Jarmon. The certitude of the defeat is compensated by a symbolical victory: McKay has all freedom to spread his values, share his vision and gain some publicity. Seems like a win-win situation.
McKay accepts, not without reluctance and more driven by the surrounding enthusiasm, starting with his wife who enjoys her new 'first lady' etiquette. But there's something we know about the American political machine, once you put your foot in, there's no way getting back. And the irony with McKay is that his political carelessness and lack of true ambitious will catch the eyes and ears of Democrats, by inspiring a more genuine and less generic form of political expression, precisely what the public needed. "The Candidate" brilliantly points out the effect of good merchandising in politics. Like a product, McKay has the looks, the message and also, the brand.
The name is in fact the film's subplot, involving McKay's father, a not-so popular veteran politician played by Melvyn Douglas. The reporters notice that the father never endorses his son's candidature, but McKay pretends it's a way to assess his independence. However, after a severe drop in polls that would have foreshadowed a total humiliation, McKay wins a debate against Jarmon at the last minute thanks to a genuine reaction rejecting the hypocritical aspect of a confrontation that dodged the real issues. Jarmon is upset, McKay wins, then McKay Sr. blesses him with the greatest compliment he could ever give him "son, you're a politician".
Jeremy Larner, who was a speech writer for the Democrat Eugene McCarthy and then can be trusted in terms of accuracy, wrote the script. It isn't just a fictionalization of a true story but a gutsy political pamphlet that hasn't lost its relevance. And if we don't remember McCarthy, we do remember the former President who hadn't done much for the country, yet compensated his lack of accomplishment thanks to his father's aura, and used Christian idiosyncrasies to please the crowds. Bush Jr. was no less a puppet than McKay, but he won, and the pages he wrote might not be regarded as the greatest chapter of American history.
And since he was elected, I guess "The Candidate" failed as a warning, and this is why I blame the film for not having been more 'thought-provoking' and 'entertaining'. The script was great, the performance of Redford as a man torn between his sincere ideals and his conviction that he's a fraud get thrillingly palpable as the film progresses. Peter Boyle, Michael Lerner and Allen Garfield are absolutely scene-stealing as the show's ringleaders, and Natalie Wood's lovable cameo gave the ultimate touch of authenticity. Apart from that, the result is rather forgettable, lacking that spice we expect from a political satire.
"The Candidate" could have been on the same prophetic wit as "Network", "Wag the Dog" or "A Face in the Crowd" but the film was as frustrating as McKay struggling during his speeches. Jeremy Larner might have won an Oscar, but a Paddy Cheyefsky he ain't. And unfortunately, the real highlight of the film happens to be the ending with the unforgettable "what do we do now?" that leaves Lucas, and the viewers, speechless. The film was so full of awkward painful-to-watch moments (can you imagine anything worse than a politician being speechless?), fitting the film's anticlimactic realism but so frustrating for viewers who expect a few explosive outbursts.
Redford remains an eternal enigma as a man we never quite see what goes on his mind, on TV or during a speech, challenging our patience but not rewarding it until the end, when he's put in the position he couldn't cheat anymore. I didn't know what he was going to do, but I guess I was glad they finally closed that door before we'd know. And that last minute gets me back to "The Godfather", again. The two films had similar opening and ending: one defeat speech from men who hadn't the stuff to 'win the game' and a door closing on the 'winner'.
As if Crime and politics were the two evil twins of power in America, except that the first door was closed on an intimate room while the second left the protagonist with the public. And I'm not quite sure which is worse: fooling the law in secrecy or fooling the public in total openness?
I chose this title because in 1973, the two Oscars for Best Screenplay went to "The Godfather" and "The Candidate". Although they play in different leagues, both screenplays bear interesting similarities through the implicit statements they make about the limits of the American Dream and the ideals that supposedly forged it. Indeed, no matter how charismatic they are, there's something rotten in a country that allows such figures as Michael Corleone and Bill McKay to succeed.
My judgment might be severe but it's a credit to Robert Redford's extraordinary performance. Sometimes, we're put in the electors' shoes and see him like a handsome and idealistic patriot, eager to raise the voice of American social outcasts and sometimes we remember, as parts of the sideshow, that these are the very reasons he was picked by his friend, Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle) to represent the Democrat party despite his blatant lack of experience.
And what's the catch for McKay? The film reveals its cynical and interesting premise when Boyle writes in a matchbox his only guarantee: "you will lose". The point of his candidature is not to undermine a Democrat potential leader's career and yet provide a realistic opponent to the Republican, the much popular Crocker Jarmon. The certitude of the defeat is compensated by a symbolical victory: McKay has all freedom to spread his values, share his vision and gain some publicity. Seems like a win-win situation.
McKay accepts, not without reluctance and more driven by the surrounding enthusiasm, starting with his wife who enjoys her new 'first lady' etiquette. But there's something we know about the American political machine, once you put your foot in, there's no way getting back. And the irony with McKay is that his political carelessness and lack of true ambitious will catch the eyes and ears of Democrats, by inspiring a more genuine and less generic form of political expression, precisely what the public needed. "The Candidate" brilliantly points out the effect of good merchandising in politics. Like a product, McKay has the looks, the message and also, the brand.
The name is in fact the film's subplot, involving McKay's father, a not-so popular veteran politician played by Melvyn Douglas. The reporters notice that the father never endorses his son's candidature, but McKay pretends it's a way to assess his independence. However, after a severe drop in polls that would have foreshadowed a total humiliation, McKay wins a debate against Jarmon at the last minute thanks to a genuine reaction rejecting the hypocritical aspect of a confrontation that dodged the real issues. Jarmon is upset, McKay wins, then McKay Sr. blesses him with the greatest compliment he could ever give him "son, you're a politician".
Jeremy Larner, who was a speech writer for the Democrat Eugene McCarthy and then can be trusted in terms of accuracy, wrote the script. It isn't just a fictionalization of a true story but a gutsy political pamphlet that hasn't lost its relevance. And if we don't remember McCarthy, we do remember the former President who hadn't done much for the country, yet compensated his lack of accomplishment thanks to his father's aura, and used Christian idiosyncrasies to please the crowds. Bush Jr. was no less a puppet than McKay, but he won, and the pages he wrote might not be regarded as the greatest chapter of American history.
And since he was elected, I guess "The Candidate" failed as a warning, and this is why I blame the film for not having been more 'thought-provoking' and 'entertaining'. The script was great, the performance of Redford as a man torn between his sincere ideals and his conviction that he's a fraud get thrillingly palpable as the film progresses. Peter Boyle, Michael Lerner and Allen Garfield are absolutely scene-stealing as the show's ringleaders, and Natalie Wood's lovable cameo gave the ultimate touch of authenticity. Apart from that, the result is rather forgettable, lacking that spice we expect from a political satire.
"The Candidate" could have been on the same prophetic wit as "Network", "Wag the Dog" or "A Face in the Crowd" but the film was as frustrating as McKay struggling during his speeches. Jeremy Larner might have won an Oscar, but a Paddy Cheyefsky he ain't. And unfortunately, the real highlight of the film happens to be the ending with the unforgettable "what do we do now?" that leaves Lucas, and the viewers, speechless. The film was so full of awkward painful-to-watch moments (can you imagine anything worse than a politician being speechless?), fitting the film's anticlimactic realism but so frustrating for viewers who expect a few explosive outbursts.
Redford remains an eternal enigma as a man we never quite see what goes on his mind, on TV or during a speech, challenging our patience but not rewarding it until the end, when he's put in the position he couldn't cheat anymore. I didn't know what he was going to do, but I guess I was glad they finally closed that door before we'd know. And that last minute gets me back to "The Godfather", again. The two films had similar opening and ending: one defeat speech from men who hadn't the stuff to 'win the game' and a door closing on the 'winner'.
As if Crime and politics were the two evil twins of power in America, except that the first door was closed on an intimate room while the second left the protagonist with the public. And I'm not quite sure which is worse: fooling the law in secrecy or fooling the public in total openness?
A must for cynics
saccenti1 November 1999
Robert Redford, the idealistic son of a former party machine governor, gets encouraged into running for the U.S. Senate by a coterie of professional handlers. Fascinating film, alternately satiric, cynical, subtle, and ironic. Shot mostly in a documentary style. A must for cynics and/or political junkies; others won't care. A good performance by Redford is complimented by fine work by Boyle and Garfield. Douglas is also great as the candidate's father. One of filmdom's classic closing lines. 2 stars of 4 on a tough scale.
Best political film ever made
wjfickling24 October 2004
I saw this film in 1972 when it came out, and I just saw it again on cable. I am amazed at how prescient this film was. Remember, this was before Jerry Brown, the real life politician most people will think of as a counterpart to Redford's character, had not yet run for governor and was still unknown outside of California. Nixon was still in office and was about to be re-elected by a landslide. Abortion was still illegal in all 50 states, and Roe v. Wade had not yet been decided. The term "sound bite" had not yet been coined. "Spin" was something a washing machine did.
Redford plays an idealistic young storefront lawyer who is persuaded to run for the Senate as a Democrat against a Republican incumbent running for his fourth term. He feels free to speak his mind because he knows he hasn't a chance of winning. His freshness and honesty win over a lot of people favorable to his politics, and suddenly the gap closes. Now he has a chance of winning, but to do so he has to win over the "undecided voters" in the middle of the political spectrum. (Sound familiar? I'm writing this nine days before the Bush-Kerry election, and no one knows who will win.) Guess what happens? Suddenly he's not so fresh and honest anymore. And by the time he finally has a televised debate with the incumbent, he has mastered the art of the non-answer answer, that is, responding to a reporter's question by making a vague statement of his own without ever answering the question.
Fast forward to 2004. The spin doctors now run the show. This film was intended as satire and as a warning. Regrettably, it has become a prediction. 10/10
Redford plays an idealistic young storefront lawyer who is persuaded to run for the Senate as a Democrat against a Republican incumbent running for his fourth term. He feels free to speak his mind because he knows he hasn't a chance of winning. His freshness and honesty win over a lot of people favorable to his politics, and suddenly the gap closes. Now he has a chance of winning, but to do so he has to win over the "undecided voters" in the middle of the political spectrum. (Sound familiar? I'm writing this nine days before the Bush-Kerry election, and no one knows who will win.) Guess what happens? Suddenly he's not so fresh and honest anymore. And by the time he finally has a televised debate with the incumbent, he has mastered the art of the non-answer answer, that is, responding to a reporter's question by making a vague statement of his own without ever answering the question.
Fast forward to 2004. The spin doctors now run the show. This film was intended as satire and as a warning. Regrettably, it has become a prediction. 10/10
A Scathing Commentary
blakiepeterson16 June 2015
Only recently does it seem like the political world has been soiled by entertainment media. HBO's "Veep", created by the satirically minded Armando Iannucci, is a brutal comedy series that details the day to day life of the vice president. Don't expect to see an all-American woman pining for a better America, because you get a narcissist hungry for power. Netflix's "House of Cards" makes politics seem as dirty as the crime world, with elected officials offing enemies left and right, utilizing corruption for the sake of unbridled authority.
In days past, there was something mystical about a candidate — the one we loved (not the Nixon of the race) seemed to be a sort of god who could do no wrong. Look at JFK, FDR; they were far from perfect, but their image, their reputation, turned them into unspeakably untouchable icons. But it seems post-Vietnam, post-Watergate, America has turned into a hotbed of negativity. We don't trust our sacred politicians like we used to. And so "The Candidate" is more relevant than ever. In 1972, the U.S. was just starting to turn into a bunch of pessimists. But now, we regard many of our elected officials in the same way we do the villain of a political thriller: evil, devilishly evil. But smart.
"The Candidate" is part black comedy, part political drama, all stitched together by an endlessly scathing screenplay and a finely tuned performance from Robert Redford. It isn't so much an emotional film as it is a witty commentary regarding the election process, and how most candidates go from freshly idealistic to power hungry after a mere few months of campaigning. The film doesn't tap into our fears in the same way "All the President's Men" did, or how "Three Days of the Condor" told us not to trust anyone sitting in office. Rather, it serves as a thought-provoker that makes us wonder if the smiles governmental hopefuls put on display are actually genuine. It's a bleak, bleak, movie, not so much because it is starkly negative but because it prefers to think that getting elected is a popularity contest, not a case of may the best man win.
Redford plays Bill McKay, a 30-ish attorney who, on a whim, decides to run for Senate. Incumbent Crocker Jarmon (Don Porter) is slated to win — McKay, you see, has been approached by political specialist Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle), who only wants McKay to act as a Democratic figure, not as serious competition. Jarmon, after all, cannot run unopposed. McKay knows he has little by way of chance, but, knowing he has the opportunity to spread his ideals around the state, does everything he can to potentially find success. And as the son of the former governor (Melvyn Douglas), with, not to mention, good looks that have captured much of the female vote, his possibilities may be stronger than Lucas could have ever imagined. Problem is, if McKay really wants to win, he'll have to, in some ways, trade many of his morals in favor of popularity.
"The Candidate" is filmed as if it were a documentary, following McKay around until his positive nature completely breaks down and sardonic ickiness takes over. As the film begins, he is a charismatic intellect who has a way with words (he is a lawyer, after all). But by the end, he can hardly control himself from laughing attacks when faced with the bullsh-t of a television promotion. The more he campaigns, the more he becomes disgusted with the idea of politics — the officials are snakes who know how to manipulate the public. Morals, he finds out, are of little importance to his peers. Sounding good, looking good, speaking well, being agreeable, going against the grain of the now-hated person he's trying to rob the job of — those are the things that matter. You can forget about making the country a better place.
Larner's Academy Award winning screenplay hits all the right notes — not mean but wicked, funny, but not overtly so. It isn't a comedy as much as it is a drama that realizes how ridiculous campaigning is, and it cackles along with McKay's increasing concerns. There is a great little scene that finds McKay in the back of a limo, reciting old lines from previous speeches. But after each sound bite he makes a sound of disgust, whether it be a gag, a cough, or a scoff. The sequence is subtle, yet it speaks volumes; have we gotten to a point in our election process where a particular quote, a particular fragment of a speech, matters more than the overall goal of a candidate?
The film also contains one of Redford's finest performances, capturing his distinctly everyman appeal while heightening the sly humor he can easily project just by uttering a single line. He is the kind of actor that can deliver a line like "We don't have sh-t in common" and still remain likable; he is the kind of actor that can look unfazed by the presence of a cameoing Natalie Wood and not seem like a complete jerk. In "The Candidate", we don't necessarily identify with him. Instead, we jump onto his back as he maneuvers through the jangling dishonesty of the election process.
Here is a movie more interested in saying something than showcasing how great its actors are, how great its direction is. "The Candidate" doesn't move you; it causes you to think. And as the race for the presidency continually heats up these days, it is compelling viewing that has hardly aged in what it has to say.
In days past, there was something mystical about a candidate — the one we loved (not the Nixon of the race) seemed to be a sort of god who could do no wrong. Look at JFK, FDR; they were far from perfect, but their image, their reputation, turned them into unspeakably untouchable icons. But it seems post-Vietnam, post-Watergate, America has turned into a hotbed of negativity. We don't trust our sacred politicians like we used to. And so "The Candidate" is more relevant than ever. In 1972, the U.S. was just starting to turn into a bunch of pessimists. But now, we regard many of our elected officials in the same way we do the villain of a political thriller: evil, devilishly evil. But smart.
"The Candidate" is part black comedy, part political drama, all stitched together by an endlessly scathing screenplay and a finely tuned performance from Robert Redford. It isn't so much an emotional film as it is a witty commentary regarding the election process, and how most candidates go from freshly idealistic to power hungry after a mere few months of campaigning. The film doesn't tap into our fears in the same way "All the President's Men" did, or how "Three Days of the Condor" told us not to trust anyone sitting in office. Rather, it serves as a thought-provoker that makes us wonder if the smiles governmental hopefuls put on display are actually genuine. It's a bleak, bleak, movie, not so much because it is starkly negative but because it prefers to think that getting elected is a popularity contest, not a case of may the best man win.
Redford plays Bill McKay, a 30-ish attorney who, on a whim, decides to run for Senate. Incumbent Crocker Jarmon (Don Porter) is slated to win — McKay, you see, has been approached by political specialist Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle), who only wants McKay to act as a Democratic figure, not as serious competition. Jarmon, after all, cannot run unopposed. McKay knows he has little by way of chance, but, knowing he has the opportunity to spread his ideals around the state, does everything he can to potentially find success. And as the son of the former governor (Melvyn Douglas), with, not to mention, good looks that have captured much of the female vote, his possibilities may be stronger than Lucas could have ever imagined. Problem is, if McKay really wants to win, he'll have to, in some ways, trade many of his morals in favor of popularity.
"The Candidate" is filmed as if it were a documentary, following McKay around until his positive nature completely breaks down and sardonic ickiness takes over. As the film begins, he is a charismatic intellect who has a way with words (he is a lawyer, after all). But by the end, he can hardly control himself from laughing attacks when faced with the bullsh-t of a television promotion. The more he campaigns, the more he becomes disgusted with the idea of politics — the officials are snakes who know how to manipulate the public. Morals, he finds out, are of little importance to his peers. Sounding good, looking good, speaking well, being agreeable, going against the grain of the now-hated person he's trying to rob the job of — those are the things that matter. You can forget about making the country a better place.
Larner's Academy Award winning screenplay hits all the right notes — not mean but wicked, funny, but not overtly so. It isn't a comedy as much as it is a drama that realizes how ridiculous campaigning is, and it cackles along with McKay's increasing concerns. There is a great little scene that finds McKay in the back of a limo, reciting old lines from previous speeches. But after each sound bite he makes a sound of disgust, whether it be a gag, a cough, or a scoff. The sequence is subtle, yet it speaks volumes; have we gotten to a point in our election process where a particular quote, a particular fragment of a speech, matters more than the overall goal of a candidate?
The film also contains one of Redford's finest performances, capturing his distinctly everyman appeal while heightening the sly humor he can easily project just by uttering a single line. He is the kind of actor that can deliver a line like "We don't have sh-t in common" and still remain likable; he is the kind of actor that can look unfazed by the presence of a cameoing Natalie Wood and not seem like a complete jerk. In "The Candidate", we don't necessarily identify with him. Instead, we jump onto his back as he maneuvers through the jangling dishonesty of the election process.
Here is a movie more interested in saying something than showcasing how great its actors are, how great its direction is. "The Candidate" doesn't move you; it causes you to think. And as the race for the presidency continually heats up these days, it is compelling viewing that has hardly aged in what it has to say.
The Candidate
Malcs22 March 2000
Robert Redford, in one of his unjustly overlooked films from 1972, stars as a lawyer and the son of the former governor of the state of California in an election year where the senatorial incumbent has no competition. Peter Boyle convinces Redford to run, fully expecting and anticipating to lose, therefore being able to run on a platform of pure integrity to show how out of touch the current senator has become. But suddenly the public realizes that some fresh, younger blood with an idealistic eye might be what they truly want rather than another in a long succession of terms by the same old huckster. Melvyn Douglas also stars as Redford's father. Even though this film is almost 30 years old, the Oscar-winning screenplay by Jeremy Larner shows just how timeless the same old issues the candidate has to decide where he stands upon (abortion, the environment, health care) actually are. The script really is eye-opening, because it underlines very well the point that even if, say, Jesus Christ were to run for office today, what He would say is not as important as how and when He'd say it. Directed by Michael Ritchie (Smile, The Bad News Bears, Semi-Tough), one of the few American directors who has been able to successfully show the black humor of the strange, fetid underbelly of competition in this society. Blink and you'll miss Natalie Wood at a fund-raiser. Completely climatized to the Seventies, she looks like Donovan's aide-de-camp.
thoughtful political study
HelloTexas119 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
'The Candidate' isn't a great film but it does have its perceptive moments and a certain sly, knowing quality about the subject it deals with, big-time politics. This shouldn't be too surprising, as its screenwriter, Jeremy Larner, was a former speech writer for Eugene McCarthy during his presidential bid. Perhaps it's the passage of time and the advent of 24-hour cable news networks, but much of the film seems obvious now, almost quaint. Robert Redford plays Bill McKay, son of a famous California governor, who has no interest in running for office at the start; he's a liberal activist lawyer helping Indians, hippies, and the downtrodden in general. A political consultant, Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle), seeks him out to become the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, mainly because no one else wants to take on the popular Republican incumbent. Lucas presents the idea to McKay like this: you don't have a chance of winning, so you can say whatever you want. McKay brushes aside his initial misgivings, finding that the idea appeals to him. After the campaign has been underway a while and McKay has secured his party's nomination, Lucas tells McKay the polls show that not only will he lose, he'll be "humiliated." Now why he would be humiliated, much less why it should matter to him, is never made clear and is a weakness in the script. Wasn't he supposed to lose? In any event, it does change McKay's thinking and so an effort is made to 'broaden' his appeal. He begins watering down his speeches and his campaign takes on a more generic tone, with upbeat TV commercials and a cheerful slogan, "For a better way: Bill McKay!" The candidate and some of his supporters become increasingly disillusioned even while his standings in the polls rises. Finally, there is a televised debate between McKay and his opponent, where at the end, a frustrated McKay lets loose and ticks off a litany of social problems that he says haven't been addressed in the debate. This return to his liberal roots has a mixed reception; Lucas thinks he's ruined everything but some of McKay's disheartened followers are buoyed. McKay follows this approach through to the election in which to everyone's surprise, not least him and Lucas, he defeats the incumbent to become senator. The famous last shot is of McKay sitting in a hotel room during the election celebration, asking Lucas, "Marvin, what do we do now?", which never receives an answer as a crowd of media and campaign volunteers swarm into the room to congratulate him. There's a lot of truth in 'The Candidate,' and though it is written from a liberal perspective, it doesn't spare that side of the political equation from some hard questions, especially that very last one.
The timeless definitive campaign
jlacerra24 June 2001
This is a truly excellent and overlooked Redford vehicle, and his performance comes full circle. From wide-eyed idealism to resigned cynicism, all the way back to little-boy-lost and overwhelmed. Redford is flawless! Peter Boyle is right-on as the experienced campaign hand. Also it is easy to overlook Don Porter's effortless portrayal of the smooth and experienced incumbent senator, just on the verge of decline. Porter's seamless delivery makes it look easy.
Douglas is also excellent as John J. McKay, Redford's father and the former governor. Obviously a traditional machine politician, and apparently estranged from his activist son for that, and perhaps for other reasons we are left to imagine, Douglas revels in the younger man's initiation to the corrupt world of politics. Catch the hunting scene to illustrate how these two are poles apart.
An intelligent, realistic, and rewarding film about politics, done at a time when folks were perhaps looking for a political fairy tale.
Douglas is also excellent as John J. McKay, Redford's father and the former governor. Obviously a traditional machine politician, and apparently estranged from his activist son for that, and perhaps for other reasons we are left to imagine, Douglas revels in the younger man's initiation to the corrupt world of politics. Catch the hunting scene to illustrate how these two are poles apart.
An intelligent, realistic, and rewarding film about politics, done at a time when folks were perhaps looking for a political fairy tale.
In the meanders of an electoral campaign
valadas26 May 2006
This movie gives us a realistic and intense picture of an electoral campaign for the U.S. Senate in all its details, compromises and tricks. It's not brilliant but still good enough. However its weakest part is the main character himself. Glamorous Robert Redford was not the best choice for the role of a sincere and honest politician who tries to make a clean campaign based on the real important political, economical and social issues and who abhors simple propaganda discussions and speeches. The result is that the character he performs appears as not as deep as it should be and not very convincing in his performance as a campaigner. But it is a well made movie after all in terms of images (almost in a documentary style) and the screen-play is rather good and interesting.
No surprises .A little uneventful.
ger55champ31 May 2020
almost too real to be true
alberto-2720 May 2002
This is a film about how power, or its possibility, corrupts. Redford is fantastically subtle, and the film itself feels like a documentary which gives you an inside look into the whole process of 20th century ( and unfortunately 21st also) politics. It is "must see" for anybody who cares about politics, and questions himself on why the path to hell is padded with good intentions.
The Candidate
oOoBarracuda21 November 2016
Michael Ritchie directed Robert Redford and Peter Boyle in his 1972 film, The Candidate. The Candidate follows Bill McKay, an everyman who was pushed into politics to dethrone the incumbent senator who many believe has turned his back on the people and is too interested in power. A film that looks a lot like real life, it is difficult to discern whether or not life has imitated art, or the opposite has taken place, either way, The Candidate is a familiar story and one that is a little difficult to visit given the current state of American politics.
Bill McKay (Robert Redford) is a man who is more than happy to continue his quiet life submerged in his civil rights centered law practice. Bill has no interest in entering politics, as his father before him, former California Governor John J. McKay. Strategist Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle) sees Bill as a unique opportunity, he sees the possibility of Bill entering a senate race against an incumbent Senator Crocker Jarmon (Don Porter) who has left his constituents disenfranchised as he seems to chase political power for his own gain. Marcus builds Bill's campaign using an interesting strategy; he has convinced Bill that he has no chance at beating the Senator, but will surely win his party's nomination, so, since he has no chance of winning, he can say whatever he wants and is free to shake up the political system on his way to defeat. The plans, however, go astray when the polls favor Bill much more than anyone ever anticipated.
The message of The Candidate is one that becomes diluted the more familiar it becomes. There have been innumerable amounts of "everymen and everywomen" running for elected office and winning that The Candidate, as a pseudo-documentary style film has lost its effectiveness. Certainly, most notably, the election of Donald Trump in 2016, proves without a doubt, that anyone with no political experience can achieve even the highest office in the land. The Candidate "worked" much better at the time it was made, when career politicians were the only ones getting elected office. Robert Redford feels a bit miscast in the lead role that commands a relatable, emotion-filled performance. In many of his scenes, he comes off paper-thin, definitely lacking emotion. Peter Boyle, on the other hand, plays his hopeful, yet controlled reckless attitude incredibly well. Boyle is an actor in which I have never sought out, yet been constantly impressed with every time I've seen his performances. Overall, The Campaign is a good enough film, but one that I wish I could have seen some 30 years prior when it still carried the crux of its relevance.
Bill McKay (Robert Redford) is a man who is more than happy to continue his quiet life submerged in his civil rights centered law practice. Bill has no interest in entering politics, as his father before him, former California Governor John J. McKay. Strategist Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle) sees Bill as a unique opportunity, he sees the possibility of Bill entering a senate race against an incumbent Senator Crocker Jarmon (Don Porter) who has left his constituents disenfranchised as he seems to chase political power for his own gain. Marcus builds Bill's campaign using an interesting strategy; he has convinced Bill that he has no chance at beating the Senator, but will surely win his party's nomination, so, since he has no chance of winning, he can say whatever he wants and is free to shake up the political system on his way to defeat. The plans, however, go astray when the polls favor Bill much more than anyone ever anticipated.
The message of The Candidate is one that becomes diluted the more familiar it becomes. There have been innumerable amounts of "everymen and everywomen" running for elected office and winning that The Candidate, as a pseudo-documentary style film has lost its effectiveness. Certainly, most notably, the election of Donald Trump in 2016, proves without a doubt, that anyone with no political experience can achieve even the highest office in the land. The Candidate "worked" much better at the time it was made, when career politicians were the only ones getting elected office. Robert Redford feels a bit miscast in the lead role that commands a relatable, emotion-filled performance. In many of his scenes, he comes off paper-thin, definitely lacking emotion. Peter Boyle, on the other hand, plays his hopeful, yet controlled reckless attitude incredibly well. Boyle is an actor in which I have never sought out, yet been constantly impressed with every time I've seen his performances. Overall, The Campaign is a good enough film, but one that I wish I could have seen some 30 years prior when it still carried the crux of its relevance.
Superb political tale...some issues and tactics never change
vincentlynch-moonoi22 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
"The Candidate" was the second film in which I saw Robert Redford; the first was "Jeremiah Johnson". Both were released in 1972. And I knew from the moment I saw this film that Redford was something special.
40 years, and at the base level, it's clear that politics hasn't changed too much. Yes, there's a lot of big money involved now, but the basics of candidate and voter is about the same...except less vitriol.
There's not exactly a plot here. It's more a story of a political pro attempting to make a modern "do-gooder" into his candidate. Redford plays an idealistic community organizer who doesn't really want to be senator, but goes along with it and then gets wrapped up in it. Not a plot, but a story about relationships and the evolution of a candidacy.
It's interesting to see some old familiar faces -- Natalie Wood, Howard K. Smith, and others.
Redford is superb. But then again, he almost always was. This was probably one of Peter Boyle's best roles, and Allen Garfield was impressive, as well. Melvyn Douglas was a pleasure to see in his role as the candidate's father. And Don Porter showed his versatility in playing the old favorite Republican candidate.
It's hard to find a negative in this film. It's worth watching and perhaps having on your DVD shelf.
40 years, and at the base level, it's clear that politics hasn't changed too much. Yes, there's a lot of big money involved now, but the basics of candidate and voter is about the same...except less vitriol.
There's not exactly a plot here. It's more a story of a political pro attempting to make a modern "do-gooder" into his candidate. Redford plays an idealistic community organizer who doesn't really want to be senator, but goes along with it and then gets wrapped up in it. Not a plot, but a story about relationships and the evolution of a candidacy.
It's interesting to see some old familiar faces -- Natalie Wood, Howard K. Smith, and others.
Redford is superb. But then again, he almost always was. This was probably one of Peter Boyle's best roles, and Allen Garfield was impressive, as well. Melvyn Douglas was a pleasure to see in his role as the candidate's father. And Don Porter showed his versatility in playing the old favorite Republican candidate.
It's hard to find a negative in this film. It's worth watching and perhaps having on your DVD shelf.
Pungent, observant and trendy...
moonspinner5520 February 2008
Robert Redford is in excellent form as a lawyer and idealist persuaded to join campaign for the US Senate on the Democratic ticket as an automatic underdog; however, his off-the-cuff appeal manages to reach a great many more voters than first anticipated. Fascinating glimpse into the election process, with fashionably quizzical "what now?" finale. Acerbic direction from Michael Ritchie, who sees the appeal in the material and never clutters up the scenario. Ritchie also gets fine supporting performances from Melvyn Douglas, Peter Boyle and Don Porter. Jeremy Larner's solid original screenplay won an Oscar, though Ritchie and his editors spike the narrative a great deal with their prickly handling. Two Oscars nominations in all, including Best Sound; Larner also won the WGA award for Best Drama Written for the Screen. **1/2 from ****
Like they say, it's all about politics.
lee_eisenberg5 December 2005
Robert Redford plays idealistic senate candidate Bill McKay. He's mainly running to bring certain political issues into the open, although he never actually plans to win. But as time goes by, he realizes that whether or not he wins, he might not be able to hold on to his values.
"The Candidate" is one of the many great movies about the world of politics. It holds up as well today as it did in 1972 (maybe even better). Redford gives a solid performance, as does Peter Boyle as campaign manager Marvin Lucas. One of the most insightful scenes is the debate between McKay and his opponent about the issues. A great movie in every way. Look for appearances by Natalie Wood, Groucho Marx, and Howard K. Smith.
"The Candidate" is one of the many great movies about the world of politics. It holds up as well today as it did in 1972 (maybe even better). Redford gives a solid performance, as does Peter Boyle as campaign manager Marvin Lucas. One of the most insightful scenes is the debate between McKay and his opponent about the issues. A great movie in every way. Look for appearances by Natalie Wood, Groucho Marx, and Howard K. Smith.
Solid Depiction Of Political Backrooms
sddavis637 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Considering that this movie was made in 1972, it holds up surprisingly well - which, since it came from an age when cynicism with government and politics was rampant - is hardly a positive message about modern society! Robert Redford stars as Bill McKay - an idealistic young lawyer who is largely an unknown, except for the fact that his father (Melvyn Douglas) was once Governor of California.McKay allows himself to be reluctantly recruited by backroom organizers for the Democratic Party to run against the popular Republican incumbent for a seat in the U.S. Senate. When first recruited, McKay is told that he can be his own man - that he can say whatever he wants and campaign however he wants. As the campaign progresses, though, he unwillingly falls more and more under the control of his handlers, and especially Lucas, played by Peter Boyle.
I liked the portrayal of Lucas and the other backroomers. It seemed realistic; like a look into a real campaign for the Senate. I also appreciated Don Porter's portrayal of Crocker Jarmon (the Republican candidate) as well as the fact that the movie avoided the temptation of turning this into a simplistic evil right-winger vs. righteous left-winger story. Instead, both candidates came across as sincere and well-meaning, even while they are clearly the products of their respective machines. Melvyn Douglas as McKay's father had one of the great lines of the movie. Reflecting on his son's apparent disdain for politics (one gets the impression he had not been happy as the Governor's son) McKay, Sr. looks at his son with satisfaction and says "you're a politician now."
Both the beginning and the ending of the movie were well done. In the beginning Lucas is just finishing up working for a losing campaign. Far from being broken hearted by his candidate's defeat, however, he simply packs up and moves on to McKay. There's no depth of commitment to the candidate; playing the game is all that counts. At the end, McKay is somewhat unexpectedly elected, and he pulls Lucas aside and with a bewildered look on his face says, "so what do we do now?" Lucas, of course, looks back uncomfortably and simply leads him out of their hotel room to greet his supporters. The point is clear: Lucas couldn't care less what McKay does now. He's probably already on the lookout for the next candidate and the next campaign. After they walk out, director Michael Ritchie has the camera linger, and the final few seconds of the movie are simply a shot of an empty hotel room - surely a commentary on the emptiness of the political scene.
This movie is solid rather than spectacular; interesting rather than riveting, very well put together and believable in almost every way. 7/10
I liked the portrayal of Lucas and the other backroomers. It seemed realistic; like a look into a real campaign for the Senate. I also appreciated Don Porter's portrayal of Crocker Jarmon (the Republican candidate) as well as the fact that the movie avoided the temptation of turning this into a simplistic evil right-winger vs. righteous left-winger story. Instead, both candidates came across as sincere and well-meaning, even while they are clearly the products of their respective machines. Melvyn Douglas as McKay's father had one of the great lines of the movie. Reflecting on his son's apparent disdain for politics (one gets the impression he had not been happy as the Governor's son) McKay, Sr. looks at his son with satisfaction and says "you're a politician now."
Both the beginning and the ending of the movie were well done. In the beginning Lucas is just finishing up working for a losing campaign. Far from being broken hearted by his candidate's defeat, however, he simply packs up and moves on to McKay. There's no depth of commitment to the candidate; playing the game is all that counts. At the end, McKay is somewhat unexpectedly elected, and he pulls Lucas aside and with a bewildered look on his face says, "so what do we do now?" Lucas, of course, looks back uncomfortably and simply leads him out of their hotel room to greet his supporters. The point is clear: Lucas couldn't care less what McKay does now. He's probably already on the lookout for the next candidate and the next campaign. After they walk out, director Michael Ritchie has the camera linger, and the final few seconds of the movie are simply a shot of an empty hotel room - surely a commentary on the emptiness of the political scene.
This movie is solid rather than spectacular; interesting rather than riveting, very well put together and believable in almost every way. 7/10
One of the best political movies
HotToastyRag25 September 2017
Political scientists and political film buffs need to watch The Candidate. It's one of the greatest classic political films ever made. I've studied dozens of political campaigns, conducted mock elections during my undergraduate and graduate courses, and volunteered for real campaigns when I was old enough. This movie is very realistic; the only other film that comes close in realism is 2015's Our Brand is Crisis.
Peter Boyle is a Democrat campaign manager, and in the California Senate election, the Republican sitting senator Don Crocker is a shoe-in. Whoever the Democrat candidate is doesn't stand a chance, so no one wants to ruin their career that way. Boyle approaches Robert Redford, the son of former Californian governor Melvyn Douglas. He's handsome, charismatic, and has name recognition—but he's a guaranteed loss so there's no consequence to anything he says or does. With the freedom to run as an honest politician, he becomes a very interesting and alluring candidate.
Even though the movie is about an election, it doesn't take too much of a stand about which party is right and which is wrong. Yes, it's the 1970s and Robert Redford is the lead, so there will be some environmental and "look out for the little guy" messages, but mostly, the film comments on the politics in general. It's really funny and sarcastic in the nicest way possible, and it has one of the most memorable last lines ever!
Peter Boyle is a Democrat campaign manager, and in the California Senate election, the Republican sitting senator Don Crocker is a shoe-in. Whoever the Democrat candidate is doesn't stand a chance, so no one wants to ruin their career that way. Boyle approaches Robert Redford, the son of former Californian governor Melvyn Douglas. He's handsome, charismatic, and has name recognition—but he's a guaranteed loss so there's no consequence to anything he says or does. With the freedom to run as an honest politician, he becomes a very interesting and alluring candidate.
Even though the movie is about an election, it doesn't take too much of a stand about which party is right and which is wrong. Yes, it's the 1970s and Robert Redford is the lead, so there will be some environmental and "look out for the little guy" messages, but mostly, the film comments on the politics in general. It's really funny and sarcastic in the nicest way possible, and it has one of the most memorable last lines ever!
Kind of Fizzled in the Latter Half
MikeyB17934 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is not bad for the first hour. It shows an independent man being chosen, almost at random, to campaign to be a California representative in the U.S. Senate. He is permitted to express, at the beginning, his own independent views; but as he becomes more and more popular his politics, his speeches begin to be more and more circumscribed in order to allow him to gain political office. In other words he starts to be a "real Politician" and tow the line in order to be victorious.
The latter half of the movie seemed redundant to me – it is just one long campaign trail – with speeches and meetings with crucial individuals to gain popularity. It actually was somewhat boring. See Primary Colors for a more sordid close-up of the political process.
The latter half of the movie seemed redundant to me – it is just one long campaign trail – with speeches and meetings with crucial individuals to gain popularity. It actually was somewhat boring. See Primary Colors for a more sordid close-up of the political process.
Film for all would be candidates to view
Captain Ken26 March 2002
Anyone thinking of running for public office should view this film. It is primer on how to win a race. Roman Pucinski when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 1972 required his staff to view this film. Redford was the candidate we all hope would serve our state. This film should be shown before every election.It has a timeless message
7 on a scale of 10
len-2123 October 2004
I like Robert Redford quite a bit as an actor. I especially like him in anything political. His run for senate as a nobody has the makings for a great movie. Great, it wasn't.
I found it entertaining, however, it seemed slow and at times boring. In fact, I wasn't impressed with Redford as much as usual. Most of the rest of the cast was just filler.
One problem I had was that the movie fails to explain in any meaningful way how Redford continues to close the gap to his opponent. Surely good looks isn't going to get you from 32% to over 50%.
Overall, I wouldn't even waste a minute on this movie, but any political movie with Redford as a star has got a big advantage up front. You default to liking it and you only change your mind if there are serious problems. There weren't any serious problems, but I have seen Redford in many better movies - Sneakers, The Natural, All the President's Men, Three Days of the Condor and The Sting, for example.
I found it entertaining, however, it seemed slow and at times boring. In fact, I wasn't impressed with Redford as much as usual. Most of the rest of the cast was just filler.
One problem I had was that the movie fails to explain in any meaningful way how Redford continues to close the gap to his opponent. Surely good looks isn't going to get you from 32% to over 50%.
Overall, I wouldn't even waste a minute on this movie, but any political movie with Redford as a star has got a big advantage up front. You default to liking it and you only change your mind if there are serious problems. There weren't any serious problems, but I have seen Redford in many better movies - Sneakers, The Natural, All the President's Men, Three Days of the Condor and The Sting, for example.
Dull Debate about the Politics of Forty Years Ago
JamesHitchcock22 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
"The Candidate" is a film which has something in common with Sidney Lumet's "Power" from the following decade. Both films look at the role played by political consultants, what would today be called "spin doctors", in the American electoral process, and both were made at a time when there was a popular conservative Republican in the White House, Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in the eighties. (Prior to the Watergate scandal, Nixon was highly popular, as indicated by his landslide win in that year's Presidential election). One difference between the films is that in "Power" more attention is paid to the personality of the spin doctor, whereas here it is the candidate himself who is at the centre.
The film tells the story of a campaign for a Senate seat in California, currently held by another popular conservative Republican, Senator Crocker Jarmon. The Democratic candidate is Bill McKay, an idealistic, charismatic and politically liberal lawyer. Much of the film deals with the relationship between McKay and his spin doctor Marvin Lucas, who endeavours to persuade McKay to tone down his radical rhetoric, especially on controversial issues like abortion and school bussing, and to make himself a bland, centrist candidate, all things to all men.
The script was written by Jeremy Larner, who had been a speechwriter for the liberal Senator Eugene McCarthy during the 1968 Presidential election campaign, so was presumably made with a liberal agenda in mind. It seems, however, to have ended up as one of those films which were ostensibly made from a liberal standpoint but which are just as capable of being interpreted in a conservative, or at least a centrist, fashion. (Others that come to mind include "High Noon" and "Seven Days in May"). Larner may have intended an indictment of the way in which the US political system discourages genuinely radical debate of issues such as poverty and race relations. The storyline, however, in which McKay comes back from a seemingly hopeless position to win the race, could also be interpreted as a warning that the Democrats must abandon radicalism and seek out the centre ground if they are to win elections. (If that was indeed the film's message, it was sadly lost on George McGovern, their candidate for President that year). Of course, Larner had put himself in a difficult position; had he written an ending in which Jarmon won the election, some might have seen this as an endorsement of conservative Republicanism.
The film is made in a rather dry, semi-documentary style, concentrating more on political debate than on personal issues. There is a suggestion that McKay, a married man, may be having an affair with another woman, but this issue is given far less prominence that it would be in most political dramas. The personal relationship which is given most prominence is the rather difficult one between McKay and his more conservative father John, a former State Governor, who is initially reluctant to endorse his son's campaign. McKay is played by Robert Redford, one of Hollywood's most prominent liberals and a huge star in the seventies, but he cannot do much with the role; McKay comes across as little more than a handsome, charismatic mouthpiece for a set of ideas, some of which are not really even his own.
Peter Boyle as Lucas and Don Porter as Jarmon are rather better, but to my mind this is a film which never really comes to life. Some of the issues have a certain modern resonance; many of Jarmon's speeches, for example, would go down well with the current "Tea Party" movement. Overall, however, my impression was that, while "The Candidate" may have been controversial in 1972, today is just comes across as a dull debate about the politics of forty years ago. "Power" has its faults, but it has held up rather better as an examination of the role of the spin doctor. 5/10
The film tells the story of a campaign for a Senate seat in California, currently held by another popular conservative Republican, Senator Crocker Jarmon. The Democratic candidate is Bill McKay, an idealistic, charismatic and politically liberal lawyer. Much of the film deals with the relationship between McKay and his spin doctor Marvin Lucas, who endeavours to persuade McKay to tone down his radical rhetoric, especially on controversial issues like abortion and school bussing, and to make himself a bland, centrist candidate, all things to all men.
The script was written by Jeremy Larner, who had been a speechwriter for the liberal Senator Eugene McCarthy during the 1968 Presidential election campaign, so was presumably made with a liberal agenda in mind. It seems, however, to have ended up as one of those films which were ostensibly made from a liberal standpoint but which are just as capable of being interpreted in a conservative, or at least a centrist, fashion. (Others that come to mind include "High Noon" and "Seven Days in May"). Larner may have intended an indictment of the way in which the US political system discourages genuinely radical debate of issues such as poverty and race relations. The storyline, however, in which McKay comes back from a seemingly hopeless position to win the race, could also be interpreted as a warning that the Democrats must abandon radicalism and seek out the centre ground if they are to win elections. (If that was indeed the film's message, it was sadly lost on George McGovern, their candidate for President that year). Of course, Larner had put himself in a difficult position; had he written an ending in which Jarmon won the election, some might have seen this as an endorsement of conservative Republicanism.
The film is made in a rather dry, semi-documentary style, concentrating more on political debate than on personal issues. There is a suggestion that McKay, a married man, may be having an affair with another woman, but this issue is given far less prominence that it would be in most political dramas. The personal relationship which is given most prominence is the rather difficult one between McKay and his more conservative father John, a former State Governor, who is initially reluctant to endorse his son's campaign. McKay is played by Robert Redford, one of Hollywood's most prominent liberals and a huge star in the seventies, but he cannot do much with the role; McKay comes across as little more than a handsome, charismatic mouthpiece for a set of ideas, some of which are not really even his own.
Peter Boyle as Lucas and Don Porter as Jarmon are rather better, but to my mind this is a film which never really comes to life. Some of the issues have a certain modern resonance; many of Jarmon's speeches, for example, would go down well with the current "Tea Party" movement. Overall, however, my impression was that, while "The Candidate" may have been controversial in 1972, today is just comes across as a dull debate about the politics of forty years ago. "Power" has its faults, but it has held up rather better as an examination of the role of the spin doctor. 5/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
