Poco antes de las elecciones, un médico especialista y un productor de Hollywood unen sus esfuerzos para iniciar una guerra con el fin de encubrir un escándalo sexual presidencial.Poco antes de las elecciones, un médico especialista y un productor de Hollywood unen sus esfuerzos para iniciar una guerra con el fin de encubrir un escándalo sexual presidencial.Poco antes de las elecciones, un médico especialista y un productor de Hollywood unen sus esfuerzos para iniciar una guerra con el fin de encubrir un escándalo sexual presidencial.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Nominado a 2 premios Óscar
- 2 premios ganados y 23 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
As satirical and surreal as this movie seems, it also has that air of 'Dr. Strangelove' that dialog, scenario's, and actions might not be that far off the mark. Past, present or future. And is scary how 'spin and deflection' has become such an art now. Back in FDR's day with his poliomyelitis, it was just common sense and general agreement to not make it an issue, or use it against him and his leadership. Cut to Bill Clinton and his indiscretion in the oval office, was dragged out and questioned to the point of making him a monster. 9/11 to this day is still questioned by many was it a conspiracy or not? To promote Bush Jr and/or give America good reason to infiltrate the middle east and all? And unlike the mystery of the JFK assassination, 9/11 conspiracy and Republican deflection is more probable and provable with technology and communication - either overtly in front of everyone's eyes, or hacked and exposed via WikiLeaks et al. And even then, it's held with scrutiny, unchallenged, and allowed to wither and fade in everyone's memory. With Wag The Dog, it seems so simplistic at first. DeNiro's 'Mr. Fix It' character seems to know how to handle everything just so. But it also shows the complexity and ease of so many involved that can take a minute piece of information and exploit it or counteract it with a simple leak and denial. And I think it's important to advise viewers to pay attention to the ending. As the supposedly internal mucking and manipulations to secure ones leadership CAN have an effect on another region of the world as a gateway trigger effect. Can we ever re-establish 'real news' over 'fake news' today and for the future...?
I saw this before the brouhaha with Clinton and Lewinsky broke, and I imagine most of the negative comments about this film came because they saw it after and thought this was a Nostradamus film. When I saw it, I thought it started a bit slow, and was a bit too self-satisfied (like the scenes of people crying at a concert; that seemed fake). However, for most of the way, this is sharp, biting, and yes, funny, though when I first saw it, I thought it was more accurate in its Hollywood satire than on its government satire. Time, of course, proved me wrong.
David Mamet will never be universally loved, because not only does there seem to be a large group that doesn't get him, but that thinks those of us that like him are degenerates. Myself, I happen to think he's one of the best playwrights and screenwriters working today (though I'm split so far on his novels). His writing may be highly stylized, but I guess I'm in tune to the rhythms of his dialogue. And he doesn't assume his audience is dumb; rather, he seeks to challenge them by asking you to come to your own conclusions, rather than hit you over the head. And he does that very well in this movie; at the beginning, we may think Conrad Brean and Stanley Motss are real sleazebags, but at the end, while we deplore the action they take of faking a war just for political ends, we can't quite dismiss them either.
Of course, a lot of that has to do with the performances of Robert DeNiro and Dustin Hoffman (Anne Heche is also a standout as Winnifred Ames, the increasingly bemused presidential aide). DeNiro seems at first like a teddy bear here, with his beard, his hat, and his bow tie, but he transfers the energy associated with his more volatile roles (TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS et al) to guile and street smarts here. The way his eyes probe whoever he's talking to, and the way he anticipates almost every verbal comeback the other person has demonstrates that(he can't anticipate every event, of course, but once he gets used to it, he can).
But the standout here is Hoffman. There's been a lot of comment on Hoffman basing his character on Robert Evans. My own theory is he read Lynda Obst's excellent book HELLO, HE LIED, which talks about the producer's role, and simply played that. I formed that theory because of his mantra whenever things go wrong, "This is nothing!", especially when Winnifred reads him the riot act after their plane crashes. There's a part in the book where Obst talks about having to argue budget with the studio, and realizes it's all a game where they have roles to play; she argues for more money, the studio for less. Just as Winnifred's role is to be pessimistic, and Stanley's is to be optimistic. And Hoffman never condescends to Stanley, instead showing a talented, maybe amoral guy who deep down is so insecure that he values credit even over his life("F*** my life, I want the credit!" is one of the best lines of the film"). Contrary to his line, this film is not nothing.
David Mamet will never be universally loved, because not only does there seem to be a large group that doesn't get him, but that thinks those of us that like him are degenerates. Myself, I happen to think he's one of the best playwrights and screenwriters working today (though I'm split so far on his novels). His writing may be highly stylized, but I guess I'm in tune to the rhythms of his dialogue. And he doesn't assume his audience is dumb; rather, he seeks to challenge them by asking you to come to your own conclusions, rather than hit you over the head. And he does that very well in this movie; at the beginning, we may think Conrad Brean and Stanley Motss are real sleazebags, but at the end, while we deplore the action they take of faking a war just for political ends, we can't quite dismiss them either.
Of course, a lot of that has to do with the performances of Robert DeNiro and Dustin Hoffman (Anne Heche is also a standout as Winnifred Ames, the increasingly bemused presidential aide). DeNiro seems at first like a teddy bear here, with his beard, his hat, and his bow tie, but he transfers the energy associated with his more volatile roles (TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS et al) to guile and street smarts here. The way his eyes probe whoever he's talking to, and the way he anticipates almost every verbal comeback the other person has demonstrates that(he can't anticipate every event, of course, but once he gets used to it, he can).
But the standout here is Hoffman. There's been a lot of comment on Hoffman basing his character on Robert Evans. My own theory is he read Lynda Obst's excellent book HELLO, HE LIED, which talks about the producer's role, and simply played that. I formed that theory because of his mantra whenever things go wrong, "This is nothing!", especially when Winnifred reads him the riot act after their plane crashes. There's a part in the book where Obst talks about having to argue budget with the studio, and realizes it's all a game where they have roles to play; she argues for more money, the studio for less. Just as Winnifred's role is to be pessimistic, and Stanley's is to be optimistic. And Hoffman never condescends to Stanley, instead showing a talented, maybe amoral guy who deep down is so insecure that he values credit even over his life("F*** my life, I want the credit!" is one of the best lines of the film"). Contrary to his line, this film is not nothing.
Rarely can film satire make you laugh and be worried about the future at the same time. Levinson's film does just that, with a great cast and great writing, this film succeeds.
You may have noticed that many of the posts and reviews argue that this is not plausible. Obviously these posters do not realize that satire is supposed to be over the top and show what can happen in extremes, and ironically, this came out just after Clinton's sex scandal, and is still relevant today with George W. and will continue to be regardless of the president. Also, some may think it oversimplifies the public as idiots, but this isn't true, especially if they are being deceived and information is withheld. There are some implausibilities, as in why no reporters went to Albania or how other countries didn't get involved other than denying the charges, but these are small and even addressed in scenes with the rival candidates, news reporters and even CIA head William H. Macy.
Really I don't know how anyone can not like this film since it is smart, funny and scary all at once with fine performances and direction all around. This is an American political satire classic that is sadly becoming less satire as time goes on.
OVERALL: 9/10. Buy or at least rent before the satire becomes reality.
You may have noticed that many of the posts and reviews argue that this is not plausible. Obviously these posters do not realize that satire is supposed to be over the top and show what can happen in extremes, and ironically, this came out just after Clinton's sex scandal, and is still relevant today with George W. and will continue to be regardless of the president. Also, some may think it oversimplifies the public as idiots, but this isn't true, especially if they are being deceived and information is withheld. There are some implausibilities, as in why no reporters went to Albania or how other countries didn't get involved other than denying the charges, but these are small and even addressed in scenes with the rival candidates, news reporters and even CIA head William H. Macy.
Really I don't know how anyone can not like this film since it is smart, funny and scary all at once with fine performances and direction all around. This is an American political satire classic that is sadly becoming less satire as time goes on.
OVERALL: 9/10. Buy or at least rent before the satire becomes reality.
I do not understand the people who did not like the movie. For me this is the greatest political satire since Chaplin's "The great dictator". Both de Niro and Hoffman are great as well. This movie is not about Clinton although they did predict correctly the Kosovo war, and Albanian terrorists. It is about American political system which is made by and for TV. Several lines from that movie ("Why Albania?" - "Why not?", "Albania does not rhyme", "What do you remember about the Gulf war? One smart bomb... I was in that building when we shot that shot", and many more) are impossible to forget because everyday political life does not let us forget them.
It had been a while since I last watched this film, but I once again remembered the reasons why I loved it so. Thoughtful and evocative, this film really captured the nature of politics and spin doctoring. This certainly ranks as one of the best political comedies of all time. The over-the-top attitude of the film didn't detract from anything, making this still quite believable. It also demonstrated how people's emotions can be manipulated when aggressively attacked. The fragile nature of the human spirit tends to make us more susceptible to such manipulations, as demonstrated in this film. With the exception of Anne Heche, everyone's performance in this film was rather good. The only other downside was Mark Knopfler's score, which was completely out of place in this film.
¿Sabías que…?
- Trivia"Why change horses midstream?" was originally a campaign slogan for Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
- ErroresWhen the coffin is unloaded from the aircraft, the flag is positioned properly, with the blue field over the decedent's left shoulder. At the memorial service, the blue is over the decedent's right shoulder.
- Citas
[Repeated line]
Stanley Motss: This is NOTHING.
- Créditos curiosos"Special Thanks to The Cast and Crew for Completing Principal Photography in 29 Days!"
- Bandas sonorasThank Heaven for Little Girls
Written by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe
Performed by Maurice Chevalier
Heard sarcastically during TV spot accusing the President of sexually exploiting an underage girl
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Wag the Dog?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- Wag the Dog
- Locaciones de filmación
- Main Drain Rd., Buttonwillow, California, Estados Unidos(Atwood Barker Market Scene)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 15,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 43,061,945
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 92,079
- 28 dic 1997
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 64,256,513
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 37 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Escándalo en la casa blanca (1997) officially released in Japan in Japanese?
Responda