Bob Roberts

I am surprised that no one in this comments index noticed how true-to-life this film turned out to be.

"Bob Roberts" was a 1992 'mock-umentry' about the election of a Republican know-nothing (the title character) to a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania; in the movie Roberts wins against a too-brainy-to win Democrat played by Gore Vidal. The real 1994 U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania featured Rick Santorum as the Republican candidate. Santorum not only had the same aggressively anti-intellectual outlook as Roberts (I understand his staff is afraid to leave him alone with the press lest he 'throw a brick'), he even used generous helpings of Roberts' faux-revolutionary rhetoric to claim that his election would be an empowerment of the common people of Pennsylvania against a murkily-described 'elite'. In fact, Santorum, like Roberts, was a front man for an economic interest - to wit, the health insurance industry - who bankrolled 95% of his lavish campaign and which was eager to replace his rival, Harris Wolford, who was an advocate for universal health coverage. Like the Vidal character, Wolford was disadvantaged by being a genuinely concerned person whose detailed worldview found it hard to stand effectively against the style of Santorum/Roberts.

Guess who represents our state today.

The focus of most of these comments has been on the film's perceived political commentary on American politics.

Let's make one thing clear: This film is a satire, not a commentary; in my opinion it's not about Republicans or Democrats, or conservatives or liberals; it is about the nature of democracies.

The point that the film, "Bob Roberts", makes can be summed up very clearly. Here is the nature of democracies: Voters choose winners over losers, champions over whiners, statements of power over statements of sacrifice. The list goes on; people prefer form over function, youth over age, presentation/entertainment over substance.

This film does transcend political lines; but in it's context, lets take a look at the specifics. Bob Roberts is electable because his message is just vague and occluded enough by his presentation, that he seems likeable. His message is not unique or original; he speaks to the elements that have always appealed to the more right-wing or fascistic elements of society; marginalization of the weak (in this case, the poor), empowerment of the common man, family values, etc.

Roberts' opponent, Paiste, is a textbook liberal; but this contest is not about left vs. right. Paiste is an educated man, and a career politician. He acknowledges the challenges in the American economy. He actually has answers to the issues; whether they are politically favorable or not is not significant. Roberts, on the other hand, says nothing about the real issues; he appeals only to the emotions of the mob, and because he uses the medium of folk music, he offends the sensibilities of liberals (both in the movie, and in its audience), because he uses the authenticity of the 60's and its messages of change, and "perverts" them to express his messages of reactionism and exclusion.

And it works.

Tim Robbins has a winner here, and this film gets overlooked because it gets dragged into these conversations about Robbins' own political views, and whether the film is making a statement about Republicans or Democrats. But Robbins says something far more universal with this film; democracies are not safe from tyranny or fascism; all it takes is a charismatic reactionary who can manipulate the interests of the press and the political interests to rise to power by appealing to the worst elements of our psyche, for entertainment, glamour, and exclusionism. Please remember that Hitler came to power by appealing to the worst aspects of the people of his nation, and was quite successful in creating much evil from that. Being part of a free nation comes with a huge responsibility; to carefully consider who we elect and what we value, and to allow those debates to have meaning. "Bob Roberts" shows us how easily we can neglect that responsibility, and how easily voters can be sold an offensive, exclusionary message, when it is wrapped up in something more attractive than what's real.

Okay, make no mistake: Bob Roberts is definitely not the most subtle film ever made. It's not so much a veiled attack on the American right-wing as it is an all singing, all dancing celluloid spit in the Republican party's face. It's also as paranoid as a junkie, and almost proudly one sided, which might be why it has slipped into relative obscurity - it's a film that could be very easily dismissed as a piece of left-wing propaganda, directed by and starring Tim Robbins, an outspokenly leftist actor.

But, Bob Roberts is a film that deserves a lot more attention than it receives, largely because unlike a lot of political comedies, it's actually funny.

Bob Roberts is a mockumentary about a right wing politician/folk singer named (unsurprisingly) Bob Roberts. Roberts is a kind of anti Bob Dylan, whose modus operandi is to emulate the spirit of the folk singing radicals and then deliberately turn their message on its head - he sings songs about enforcing the death penalty on drug dealers, and the positives of investing in the stock market. Dylan provides such an obvious touchstone for the character that it's arguable the whole film is as much a spoof of the Dylan documentary Don't Look Back as it is a political satire.  The songs are a good example of what makes this film work. Sure, they're unashamedly political and barbed - they're the kind of spoofs that you'll now find dime a dozen on youtube - but they are so painfully earnest and straightfaced that they're kind of hypnotic. In Bob Roberts, Robbins has created a character who absolutely believes the terrible and terrifying things he sings about, and he plays the part with a wide eyed enthusiasm that makes you laugh, but in that oh so unsettling "I'm genuinely disturbed by this" kind of way.  The jokes are totally underplayed, save for an out of place 'before they were famous' Jack Black cameo appearance. He's the only actor who inhabits his role as if it's meant to be funny, all but giving the audience a big fourth wall breaking wink. Everyone else, however, lets the humour come naturally from the insanity of what they're saying: they don't gurn to the camera. From Alan Rickman's performance as the shadowy Big Business agent to Gore Vidal as Bob Roberts' running mate, the rest of the cast play the thing totally straight-faced.

Sure, the movie's pretty preachy, but it never becomes boring: at a lean 102 minutes, it's a freight train of a film, spitting out characters, situations, and genuinely thrilling plot twists.

Best of all is the film's ending, which is as cutting as the punchline to a sick joke. There's no messing around to this one. The conclusion socks you in the guts then carries on its way, whistling Bob Roberts' "Drugs Stink" as it goes.

Tim Robbins has made one heck of a statement with this film presenting politics as it really is, crooked and disturbing. The screenplay is brilliantly clever brimming with brutal honesty about the political battle in washington.Robbins plays the right-wing politician perfectly portraying a crooked yuppie business man willing to do anything to get elected to the US Senate a must see film one of the best films of the decade.

An amazing work!

Twice I had to confirm the release date of 1992 since this film's precise and uncanny applicability to the events of this last year were amazing. The political dynamic under which this country suffers today - along with the cabal currently installed in the White House that employed precisely the same tactics as defined in this film - were recreated, or more accurately foretold, with an uncanny truthfulness, precise focus, and vivid clarity.

Tim Robbins' direction, writing, and acting were all phenomenal; I never really fully appreciated his talent and brilliance until this film; Gore Vidal's contribution was a special treat from both a fine actor and a remarkable intellect.

Well worth the time - and a replay or two to capture, fully, all of the nuance and insight of this fine work.