The Best Man

 

The Best Man

       Franklin J. Schaffner's 1964 film The Best Man follows a very heated presidential election between Henry Fonda's William Russel and Cliff Robertson's Joe Cantwell.  Throughout the film the audience is presented with the true nature of these election seasons, often being much less amicable than the public might perceive.  The two smear campaigns led by the different candidates, and their willingness to do so, shows just how turbulent these election seasons are.

       Throughout the film we are presented with the incredibly complicated nature of politics, with the standing president being very vague about his affiliations and acting differently between the two candidates.  We also see how easy it is to let your morals fall by the wayside in service of reaching that end-goal, the presidency.  While Cantwell is known very well for his predatory campaigning practices, Russel is steadfast in his convictions when it comes to corruption.  For the majority of the film he blatantly refuses to blackmail Cantwell, and it isn't until it's absolutely necessary that Russel brings in his damning evidence.

       These two show the power that this kind of position entails and the lengths people would go to to reach that goal.  During this notable shift in attitude we also lose a very fundamental part of Russel's character, his genuine honesty.  In the beginning of the film Russel is dead set on winning the election his way, the right way, but after constant pleading from his advisor and a threat from Cantwell himself, Russel is forced to act.  Russel compromises his honesty
and integrity, attempting to smear Cantwell.  This attempt fails when Cantwell reveals that his entire attempt was made under false pretense, but in this set of actions we see Russel fall back into line with his morals.

       Although Russel doesn't end up becoming the next president, he uses the powers that he has as a running candidate to redirect all of his votes towards a third candidate.  After acknowledging just how much the race had changed who he was and how he acted, Russel and his wife go home.  I found this ending to be incredibly poignant, as having the ability to admit when you're wrong and that there's better candidates is one of the most important parts of good leadership.  

Other People's Money

 Other People's Money

       Other People's Money presents its audience with a very interesting perspective.  What would typically be a villain in other films, Danny DeVito's Larry the Liquidator, is an aggressive CEO who prides himself on his ability to foreclose on failing businesses.  This 1991 film directed by Norman Jewison has many interesting themes and ideas involving the use of these characters and their connections and feelings with one-another.  The audience is kept on their toes so to speak, as DeVito rarely settles on his actual role in the plot till his big speech at the end.

       Larry's most notable trait is that he actively acknowledges the damage he does, even if it is in his own unique and cynical way.  From his point-of-view, or at least as we're led to believe, he sees these liquidations as not only par for the course for businesses, but essential for investors to know what is and isn't worth maintaining.  This statement also comes at the cost of an entire factory's worth of employees' jobs, something that Gregory Peck's Andrew Jorgenson can't stand for.  As the owner of the factory that Larry is attempting to close, Jorgenson fights his hardest and brings in their family lawyer to ensure that Larry fails.

       With every attempt made by Jorgenson, Larry has a more powerful response.  This back-and-forth goes on essentially the entire film, and we get to see what each of these leaders values in their businesses.  For Larry, money is key.  From the onset of the film we are shown just how effective it is and how much he enjoys it, no matter the emotional cost of others.  Larry has almost full control over the flow of his staff, so much so that he can make them fake frustration to get what he wants in negotiations with Jorgenson's lawyer.  This is in stark contrast to how Jorgenson runs things.  Although his business was in fairly steep decline in recent years, Jorgenson doesn't give up hope.  Jorgenson fights tooth and nail throughout the film in an uphill battle against a multi-millionaire, and when the film does finally reach their conflict it is obvious what he stands for.

       Jorgenson's decisive nature and inspiring speech rouses the employees for one last time before eventually, the factory closes and Larry gets his way.  These two show off very different styles of leadership, one more effective than the other.  In a turn you might not expect, I thought Larry was genuinely more fit for his position than Jorgenson for his.  As harsh as that may sound, Jorgenson was unable to properly rally his donors and employees under a single cause, unlike Larry.  Larry's central focus on increasing profits and maintaining the bottom line is exactly what the executives wanted, and Larry served the shareholders exactly how he was expected to.  It would be unfair to say that Jorgenson was a poor leader, as he does a fantastic job of inspiring others throughout the film, but he just doesn't quite understand what executives care about in the modern business world.

Office Space

 

Office Space

       Throughout the 1990 film Office Space, the audience is presented with the notion that a modern work environment isn't productive for some individuals.  Over the course of the film we watch as three employees at a tech firm decide to take matters into their own hands, hacking the computer systems and providing themselves with some money on the side.  In an amusing critique of modern workplace culture, when Ron Livingston's Peter Gibbons decides to essentially quit working at his job, he is almost nothing but praised.

       As we grow and change as a society our needs change, and that couldn't be any more evident than with the newest generation of individuals.  Sustainability and reliability are a key aspect of a job search for many young adults, and as shown in the film these jobs can be very easy to lose.  These, and the growing notion that a job is just a job, nothing more or less, lend credence to the idea that employers are less likely to hire these young adults.  

       The lack of care for the actual employees in the company is incredibly evident when it comes to Stephen Root's Milton Waddams, who get mistreated repeatedly throughout the film.  After being "shadow" fired, or let go without official notice, Milton continues to work in increasingly worse positions.  First having his desk moved, then his stapler stolen, Milton's last straw is in being moved to a different floor than his coworkers.  Throughout the film Milton hints at the idea that he might do something bad, and the complete lack of care shown by everyone at the company is exactly what leads to Milton's eventual outburst.

       Overall this film did a great job at showing how ineffective leadership and careless treatment of employees can have disastrous consequences.  From Peter's get-rich-quick scheme to Milton's fiery outburst, the modern work environment forgets about the humanity of the employees and expects nothing but work and care for the company.  While these ideals might have been shared fairly globally historically, this new generation is much less likely to tolerate these unfair conditions.

       Fun Fact: Swingline actually started producing the red staplers after this film repainted one of their original designs.

Devil Wears Prada

 

Female Leadership and 'Devil Wears Prada'

       David Frankel's 2006 comedy-drama film presents the audience with the struggles of a woman in the fashion industry, and forces the protagonist to question her ethics in order to get further in this world.  Anne Hathaway's Andy is a recent college graduate attempting to get her break in the world of journalism, but when presented with the opportunity of a lifetime she decides to take a job as the assistant of the illustrious editor of Runway magazine.  This editor, Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly, is considered horrible by many of the people in the industry, but throughout the film we are presented with a lot of humanizing scenes that put her life into perspective.

       Andy makes the claim that Miranda is thought of in much worse regard than a man in her position would be, due to the fact that women in positions of power are often presented with more challenges when it comes to public perception.  Oftentimes people have unconscious biases towards women in the workplace, and thinking about this through the lens of a man in that role I do believe it would be seen fairly differently.  I don't think that this would dramatically change how I felt about the character though, as while she was doing incredibly well for herself in the world of fashion, she suffered all of the flaws that any person does.  

       There is a question to be raised about overworking employees in the film.  Are these assistants being presented with a fair workplace or are they being taken advantage of by their employer?  Miranda Priestly demands incredible punctuality throughout the film, and as the movie progresses Andy figures out ways to accommodate for this schedule and impress Priestly.  While this does come off as incredibly overbearing at times, Andy is always presented with the option of quitting the job.  I believe that Priestly was fair to the point that she made Andy chose between letting Emily go to the Paris Fashion Week or taking her spot.  We see throughout the film how this environment changes Andy, and she does eventually take her spot.  

       This cut-throat attitude is seen in many of the characters in the movie.  Emily does very little to help Andy during the beginning of the film, and she spends a lot of time telling her about the many other assistants that had come and gone.  While she acts like she is invincible in this workplace, it is quickly seen that Miranda would rather replace her with someone who will go above and beyond in their assistant role.  Out of all of the characters in the film I feel that Nigel got cheated the most, as he had been genuinely helpful to Andy throughout the film.  Although it wasn't the nicest assistance, Nigel was a guiding character for Andy that helped her understand what she wanted out of her job.  After working very hard for Miranda for years, Nigel gets unfairly passed over for a role at another company, one he had been hoping to get for years.

       Overall I felt like this film depicted an environment that consistently turned good people either cynical or broke them, and it was very refreshing to watch Andy get out of it towards the end of the film.  I think Miranda Priestly was a fairly tyrannical boss but not without reason, and her demanding nature was something that would probably be seen as a negative in almost anyone.

Wag The Dog (1997)

 

Wag The Dog

       

       In our modern day and age it's almost quaint to see the concerns of the characters in this film and the lengths to which they'll go to ensure that they maintain a good face in spite of some properly damning evidence.  It is very well known nowadays that the government interferes with what information the public is allowed to see, and while a lot of these ideas used to be considered conspiracy they now seem at least somewhat more reasonable.  Amusingly enough, when I was discussing this film with my father after viewing it, he informed me that it was based on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal that broke the news very soon after the release of the film.  Amusingly enough, Patti Aliventi's article about the film directly addresses this controversy and cleared up my confusion on the matter, but I find it very interesting to note just how public perception and timing can completely change the context of a film.  Almost to the point of the movie to some degree, improper context and I'm sure external influences at the time led many people to believe the film was about a controversy that it had absolutely nothing to do with.

       I believe that leaders could very easily use technology like this at the time, and it's especially unnerving to think about the fact that we are almost 30 years from the 1997 release of the film.  Technology has advanced dramatically, and while many people do have unwarranted concerns about the use of technology it is essential to note just how much technology is used in our day-to-day lives.  Social media is one of the most important aspects of many peoples' lives, and with the private nature of these platforms people can push specific agendas in a forum that may foster and support these notions.  It's easier than ever to find misinformation and to become deeply engrained in rabbit holes entirely filled with falsehoods, and these echo chambers nurture many ideas that can end up being hateful or misleading to the public.

       As a society it is our job to be careful about how we use our technology, and to hold our leaders accountable for their misgivings in terms of information on these platforms.  The grand divide in our political culture allows for deep seeded untruths to be spread like wildfire on both sides, which lead to people becoming more and more jaded and hateful towards the other side.  Avoiding the pitfalls of these corners of the internet can allow an individual to ensure they don't become one of these hateful people, but it remains important to stay up to date on events.  Keeping perspectives and biases in mind when reading news is essential for truly forming original opinions on political topics like those seen in the film.

Final Reflection

 

Final Reflection

       As we've discussed, movies are engrained in our society.  I grew up watching sci-fi, action, and horror movies with my family.  Films series like James Bond and Jurassic Park lined my parents bookshelves, which gave me an appreciation for some of the corny aspects of older films and the absolute dread you can feel watching a movie about your favorite dinosaurs.  My most memorable early childhood film was George Lucas's 1977 film Star Wars.  My dad was so excited to show me his VHS tape copy of the original release when the animated film and series Star Wars: The Clone Wars was releasing in theaters and on Cartoon Network in 2008.  Seeing the opening crawl was awe inspiring for my 6 year old brain and I immediately wanted to see more of the star ships and Lightsaber battles.  The original trilogy is a great example of unlikely leaders in a high stress scenario, with Luke Skywalker and Han Solo going from intergalactic nobodies to legends over the course of only four years.
       

One movie that really stood out to me was Nick Castle's 1983 film The Last Starfighter.  The sci-fi film sees Lance Guest's Alex Rogen experience the chance of a lifetime when he wins an arcade game that happens to be recruitment software for an intergalactic war.  With many similar themes to Star Wars, I was drawn to the movie soon after watching the original three Star Wars films.  Alex has many great leadership characters throughout this film, including Grig.  Seeing Grig sacrifice himself in order for Alex to save the galaxy was incredibly inspiring, and Centauri stepping into a greater leadership role was very nice to see as well.

One character whose leadership has stuck with me even through today is MacReady from John Carpenter's 1982 classic The Thing.  Kurt Russell plays the pilot MacReady, who gets stuck in an Antarctic research base with his crew and another mysterious guest.  The group starts experiencing weird happenings like their dogs dying and members of their crew either going missing or turning into grotesque monsters, and by the end of the film it is left up to one's interpretation over whether MacReady was able to truly kill the creature or not.  The immediacy with which MacReady is able to rally the remaining humans together to test one-another is admirable, and his intellect allows him to figure out the shapeshifting nature of the creature.

One movie I go back to fairly often is Shane Black's 2016 film The Nice Guys.  Seeing the begrudging cooperation between Ryan Gosling's Holland March and Russel Crowe's Jackson Healy turn from a hatred to an eventual friendship is very impactful and the way they bounce off each other sheds a light on how two people can lead each other.  When Holland March is going through constant hard times, Healy's rough intuition and insights push him to be better for his daughter and himself.  While it can't really be said that March had a lot to teach Healy, they both became more aware of each other's personal issues and grew as individuals because of it.