Written by Emilio Estevez, Bobby tells the story of the lives of 22 people who were in and around the Ambassador Hotel at the time of Robert Kennedy’s assassination. In its form, the film is similar to Crash or Babel, it tells a series of interconnected stories which draw together a particular American experience. It’s not a film about Robert Kennedy. It’s not a film about the political motivations of Sirhan Sirhan, nor even a campaign story.
Readers of the other blog I write (oh ho ho, one of many, etc) will know that I am slightly taken with Bobby Kennedy. To me, he embodied the potential of American politics during the 1960s, and was able to create a vision of the future which far surpassed that of his brother, JFK. Kennedy was a reluctant politician, committed to fulfilling the promise of his brother’s presidency, while holding progressive views which outstripped his more pragmatic sibling.
The vignettes within Bobby are real and full of pathos. Lindsay Lohan plays a teenage girl marrying a boy from her high school class so that he can avoid the draft. In conversation with her hair-stylist for the day (played by an almost unrecognizable Sharon Stone), Lohan’s character observes that she would marry any boy she could, if it would stop them from going to Vietnam. William H. Macy plays a philandering hotel manager who sacks his racist employee (Christian Slater) after discovering that Latino workers had been prevented from leaving the workplace to vote. Anthony Hopkins plays a retired doorman who continues to return to the hotel he worked at, his life defined by his persona there. The characters here find themselves at a cross-roads, making decisions which transcend the political process, but which are informed by the spirit of the times, while reminding us that a public optimism cannot change each and every life.
More practically, there are some things about this film that might bother some people. For a start, it’s not narrative driven. It seeks to create a sense of what it was like to be American (from a range of experiences) at that time in history. This makes some people crazy. Secondly, it’s highly political. There is no doubt that Estevez’s own activist background and that of his father, Martin Sheen, have played a strong role in both what this movie portrays but also how it looks and feels. Estevez met Kennedy when he was four years old and was just six when Kennedy was assassinated, and those with a more critical eye than me may argue that the picture he presents of Kennedy is uncritical and rose-coloured.
News reel footage is woven into the stories, showing Kennedy’s commitment to reversing environmental damage, improving the lives of poverty-stricken Americans, and advancing the cause of civil rights in the United States. Even as a long-time admirer of Kennedy’s political activism (I actually have a book of his interviews that I bought when I was 15…yes, I am that kind of nerd) I was surprised by the depth of his vision and the extent of his progressive views. One can only wonder how the world might have been….
This film scores one whole tissue box from me. I am not joking when I say that I sobbed almost uncontrollably for about twenty minutes after it finished. It may not have this effect on everyone, but for those who are passionate about the difference that principle, optimism and inclusion can make to our society – at the political level and well beyond, this is a moving and provocative film.
8 comments:
I sobbed my heart out too, and wonder if he had lived whether America would have been as racially divided as it is today.
Exactly. I wonder that too.
Goodness though - how awesome were the performances? Even Estevez was, I thought, astonishing.
And the tenderness between Martin Sheen and Helen Hunt (who I usually hate) was just heart-hurting.
I have the hates for Helen Hunt, too. I must see this film, despite her inclusion.
Ooh - why the Helen Hunt Hate? I've hardly seen her in anything else but liked her understated performance in this fillum.
Always find myself fixating on her forehead, tho.
I've endured Helen Hunt in several movies, and she was abominable in all of them, Pom. I've popped into IMDb to refresh my memory, and these are the HH films I've sat through:
A Good Woman (good film, but she's terrible)
What Women Want (terrible film and she's worthy of it)
Dr T and the Women (good film, but she's soooo irritatingly awful)
As Good as it Gets (overrated and so is she)
Twister (banal fillum and ghastly acting)
and thankfully I can't remember her in Bob Roberts, which I loved.
I'm also extremely shallow, and she's damned plain.
I just think she's Helen Hunt.
In much the same way that I think that William Hurt is, most of the time, William Hurt.
* ducks flying objects *
Also, on a broader note, I know there are people who think that anyone who questions the performance of actors is somehow a bi-atch. Can I just say that if some one has a problem with my job performance, they never have a problem with pointing out that fact.
I have also noticed that Tom Hanks is excellent at playing Tom Hanks, and Mel Gibson has the art of playing Mel Gibson NAILED.
Which means I join Meva in not being much impressed with "What Women Want",but I don't think it was all Helen's fault.
Incidentally, she was good playing Sarah Jessica PArker's best friend in "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun".
Also, I have to disagree about the acting in Twister. Sure, Bill Paxton seemd to have been drugged, but Philip Seymour Hoffman was awesome.
Ah, yet another film that I thought "I MUST SEE THAT" when I read about it, then, due to having the attention span of a goldfish combined with relegating all Video Slezy duties to MrB, promptly forget about.
Note to self: be more proactive. Plus, go see this movie.
PS - I adore, adore, adore E. Estevez.
Post a Comment