ElMaruecan82
Half political satire and half mockumentary, "Bob Roberts" accurately reflects what is wrong with the American political system … and indirectly what is right. The film relates the ascension of a charismatic yuppie from Philadelphia, a 35-year old self-made, a gifted swordsman, guitar player and folk singer named Bob Roberts.Like the most memorable movie characters, Bob Roberts is a man of fascinating contradictions: his conservative views are swept off by his youth, handsomeness and communicative smile while his notorious aversion toward the 60's rebelliousness is expressed through folk songs performed in public à la Bob Dylan.It's not coincidental that the film is Tim Robbins' directorial debut, and that he wrote and starred in it, for it immediately echoes another political classic : "Citizen Kane". When you watch Bob Roberts, you don't have Charles Foster Kane in mind, but as he slowly sinks into the darkest side of his personality, the film gets more distant to its initial satirical tone, and become closer to a powerful character study, scary because true.The strength of "Bob Roberts" is its multi-layered directing, flirting so many tones and styles. The documentary format allows jumping from one scene to another, without caring for its disjointed aspect. We follow Roberts visiting a school, singing in public, being acclaimed by fans or criticized by a journalist, played by Lynne Thigpen. She provides the first interesting insight by calling Roberts a "Machiavellian poseur" even though at that moment, Roberts still strikes as a normal politician. Aren't they all Machiavellian poseurs anyway? But one character regularly pops us as the troublemaker: Giancarlo Espositio plays Bugs Alijah Raplin, a black journalist and activist who discovered the implications of Roberts' anti-drugs foundation with some third-world countries' traffic. Robert's right hand, Lukas Hart III, played by Alan Rickman, has been accused several times but no proof was found whatsoever. According to Raplin, one of the reasons the media doesn't treat the information is because they belong to politicians. Later, an incident during a live TV program proves him right. Bugs' insistence and undesirability inspires a cruel machination against him that will also help Roberts to leverage the number of voters. Bugs, as the attacker who'd turn to be a victim, is an interesting counterpart to the titular character's flamboyance, being everything he's not, he's not an upper class WASP, he doesn't have the same sex-appeal or charisma, he's marginalized by his quest of the truth. The contrast is too obvious though, and I guess the subtle portrayal of Senator Baiste by Gore Vidal, as Roberts' opponent.Vidal embodies the honesty of a politician born with true idealism, a man who has certainly been impacted by James Stewart in "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" and believed that John F. Kennedy would change America, before the disillusioning aftermath of his assassination. Like Bugs, Baiste is victim of a cruel machination accusing him of abusing an underage girl. He never truly recovers from the accusation in the polls, and as he doesn't believe in "negative campaigning", never strikes back.Baiste's interventions bring the most interesting insights about American politics, and I read in IMDb trivia that most of his statements were improvised, which provides a supplementary level of spontaneity and truth. Baiste is actually not surprised by Roberts' appeal. He knows the guy has connections with the CIA, which had proved to work for Nixon. The film is set at the verge of the first Gulf War, and since the beginning, despite the seemingly diplomatic efforts going on, we know the dice are cast.As the storyline progressed, I felt the film lost its realism, got too sensational, even too radical in its attempt to denounce some extreme wings of American policy. Roberts' fans got more and more demonic, forming a sort of collective trance where Roberts was less a political leader than a modern-day guru. They hear what they want to hear, they don't complain, all they want is to have the right to get their share of the American Dream, and from the mouth of a businessman, the share is not symbolical. Roberts doesn't speak about values, but about greed and success, incarnating a cynical detachment that even the crisis of 1987 hadn't defeated.But while I felt the film went too far after the assassination attempt on Roberts, I realized on a second thought that the film couldn't have been more accurate. Are the manipulations orchestrated by Robert's team unconceivable? Just think of Richard Nixon, think of the way George W. Bush attacked Iraq on the basis of false accusation. Yes, politics is made of lying, as Vidal said, it's all about justifying a threat by taking a local thug and waving its menace as a Hitler-like figure. The same manipulation of the Baiste scandal echoes the way, the Bush camp tried avoided the debate about his enlisting in the Vietnam war. History repeats itself. It's true that the portrayal of radicals flirt with caricature while the realism of movies like "JFK" and "Nixon" didn't make them less flattering about politicians."Bob Roberts" is refreshing because it points the finger on the danger of radical beliefs, and the way they lead to disasters, in the name of so-called values. And since I mentioned "Nixon" and "JFK", I realize that the 90's might be the best decade for political movies, Oliver Stone took the dramatic approach while "Bob Roberts" and "Wag the Dog", another gem of Black comedy, were more satirical but, at the end, more prophetic. Maybe it's due to the fact that the 90's were still close enough to the 70's, so the Nixon's trauma wasn't healed yet, and close enough to the 2000's, so people could foreshadow the fanatical path America was taking.The pedagogic aspect of "Bob Roberts" is undeniable, but it's its prophetic value that makes the whole experience chilling, behind the genuine laughs it generates.
Dan1863Sickles
A guitar-twanging conservative with youthful looks and dark charisma launches a disturbing drive for political power in this perceptive and disturbing black comedy, written and directed by Tim Robbins.There are lots of reasons to dislike Tim Robbins. He's a movie star. He's smug, self-righteous, arrogant, self-pitying, and rich. He's married to Susan Sarandon, the most gorgeous and vibrant mature woman imaginable. He has so much, yet consistently strikes the pose of a martyr. I tuned into this movie prepared to hate it, but came away very impressed. Whatever his flaws as a citizen or a political thinker, Tim Robbins is a gifted film maker. The musical numbers are hysterical, and the documentary style comedy is the best since SPINAL TAP. The movie keeps moving at a suspenseful pace, and the chilling ending is surprisingly convincing, understated rather than too melodramatic.Now there are some flaws to this movie that I think merit discussion. Tim Robbins hates the Bob Roberts character he plays, hates him with a passion. Yet he strikes several false notes. Some reviewers would deny this, but Bob Roberts is clearly supposed to be an "evil" Republican populist like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. And that's fine. But Robbins gets into trouble by making Roberts too much like . . . well, like Tim Robbins.Bob Roberts is a too hip. He's a Hollywood hipster. He digs folk music, adores Bob Dylan, and is entirely too cerebral and too in love with the flash and glamor of MTV type videos. Tim Robbins misses the essence of how conservatives market themselves, how they tap into (and genuinely share) the loathing the white working class feels for intellectuals and artists. Bob Roberts minces around in a white fencing suit, fencing with his campaign manager, like a proud Prussian prince. Fencing! When George W. Bush was at Andover, he named himself "high commissioner of stickball." He knew even then that fencing was worse than polo. Tim Robbins misses the point about what cultural populism really means.On a deeper level, this movie wants to leave you in a cold sweat, like Frankenheimer's 1962 version of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. And it succeeds, to a degree. But these characters are all surface, with no depth. Bob Roberts is as cold and reptilian as Raymond Shaw, but the problem is that his evils are all political, not personal. You don't see more than a second or two of Roberts' parents and early life. You certainly don't see a maniacal mother figure like Angela Lansbury in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. There's not a hint of connection between the inner, emotional, or sexual lives of these characters and their extreme political convictions. Bob Roberts has a wife, a blonde who hangs on his arm and smiles adoringly, but we see nothing else. Married to a woman as formidable as Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins must know much more than this about marriage. But he doesn't accept the challenge. As a result Bob Roberts is a political cartoon rather than a person. And therefore the movie is chilling, but ultimately not as profound or tragic as older political films like THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.
mdavis-53
If you think this movie is not commentary you've missed the point entirely. Satire is commentary. It is always commentary. This movie is a comment on all those politicians who do what Bob Roberts does in this movie--and if he doesn't resemble a Republican or two we have come too well to know in this country, well, then, I suppose you may as well believe you can have satire without commentary. And there's a bridge that might interest you.Other than, that it's a very effective satire and hits its mark 9 times out of ten. Gore Vidal is...well, he's Gore Vidal in this movie, and that's quite enough, of course.And Tim Robbins? Well, that's my point. Let's just say this: he's not Republican!
