Bob Roberts

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.

I didn't understand why Republicans were so offended by this movie. Bob Roberts's political affiliation had nothing to do with his dirty campaign tricks. Bob Roberts could just as easily have been a Democrat. This film is not mocking Republican dishonesty, but political dishonesty. Tim Robbins does a great job as an evil, hypocritical folk singer / politician, and there is a very good supporting cast. Not laugh-out-loud funny, but bitingly satirical and creepy.

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.

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.

A broad take on arch-conservatism in American politics that rings true on many levels, false on others. The songs and videos are the weak points--simple and shallow as they are, it's hard to buy that Bob Roberts could have had any commercial success at all. On the other hand, the portrayals of the newscasters and Roberts' followers are a beautiful mix of satire and truth.

There are so many broad caricatures on this film, I found myself wishing that Tim Robbins would have toned it down for the sake of believability. This film lays it on a little heavy, which keeps it from being a more important work. None the less, it is eerily more timely in 2003 than it was in 1992.

As you will read, this is a highly political movie which may be friendly or unfriendly to your political sensibilities. Keep that in mind when you read this, or any, review. ;-)