Bob Roberts

In 1992, the idea of a radical right winger who develops a nearly cult-like following initially based on writing songs that "bug the liberals" (as the folk band "The Goldwaters" did in the mid '60s...and yes, there was really a folk band called "The Goldwaters," and they put out an album titled "Songs that Bug the Liberals") becoming a political force seemed a bit far-fetched. Flash forward 30 years, and we can see how prophetic Robbins was.

Robbins co-wrote (the screenplay and the songs), directed, and stars in this mock documentary as Bob himself, with his big, slightly smarmy grin put to good use. With the state of Pennsylvania serving as a microcosm for the U. S., we watch as Roberts visits both large cities in the state and more depressed rural towns, drawing in fervent followers (including one weirdo played by Jack Black, in his first major movie), and singing songs to "own the liberals."

Roberts has a shady financial past and surrounds himself with similar sketchy goons with a crooked idea of patriotism, like Lukas Hart, a cocky SOB who is seen in one scene demanding an apology over the "Iran Contras circus" (as he calls it in front of Congress). Those who disagree with Roberts at his rallies/concerts are physically assaulted. Media outlets who dare to question him are called "socialists," "communists," and "anti-Americans." Roberts and his circle of radicals are briefly seen in a "prayer circle," led by Hart, and the documentary filmmaker is warned not to film them. And as icing on the cake: Roberts eventually utters these words in front of his cult: "Time to Make America Great Again!"

One has to wonder, did people like Newt Gingrich, Roger Ailes, and Rush Limbaugh watch this early '90s? Seeing how Ailes got his dream "news" network launched four short years later, this was distinct possibility. The idea of the media and politics intertwining has been explored before in movies like "A Face in the Crowd" and "Network," but the semi-documentary approach to "Bob Roberts" gives it a more realistic flavor regarding American politics.

Watching this movie now is alternately amusing and eerie. Robbins is a well-known liberal who populates his movie with friends and co-stars from several of his earlier movies, including John Cusack, Peter Gallagher, and of course his partner at the time, Susan Sarandon. Alan Rickman is fantastic, as expected, as the arrogant, corrupt Hart.

The songs are twisted versions of Bob Dylan classics and could have been written by Christopher Guest and Michael McKean, but were penned by Tim Robbins and his brother David. An interesting footnote: Robbins' father was once a member of the folk band "The Highwaymen," known best for their cover of the Civil War-era song "Michael Row the Boat Ashore."

It is rather perplexing that this movie is so hard to find. NetFlix and other streaming services don't offer it. NetFlix DVD rentals don't even offer it as a DVD rental. It is available for purchase on Amazon. The fact that his movie is so buried makes one wonder if the dialogue spouted by Roberts' nemesis in the film, a reporter played by Giancarlo Esposito, at the end of the film is more accurate than we thought.

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.

This film predicts the current state of the USA. From a politician with a rebel/conservative persona who has people worshiping him and even mobilize for their cause. It seems that every named character is a recognizable face from the 90's. It's a really well made political satire like no other I've seen.

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.

I can understand why Republicans would be upset by this film, but I think that Democrats and/or small-"l" liberals should squirm when they watch this, too. The real sting in this film is that, devious and repulsive as Bob Roberts is, he is far more charismatic and interesting than his tired rival, Brickley Paiste (Gore Vidal), and he has managed to appropriate all of the weapons of the 1960s protest movements (including that most sacred insitution of all, folk music) and use them with a vigour that is scarily convincing. Roberts has the adulation of young men and women (watch for a young Jack Black as a smitten fan), the power of the record industry, and access to concerts halls and media coverage to get his message across. What does the left have? A rabid underground journalist (Bugs Raplin), a goofy "Saturday Night Live"-type show (Cutting Edge Live) that may once have been edgy, but now just seems silly (even Roberts himself is a fan), a tired old senator droning on about social programs (Paiste), and a few strident voices crying in the wilderness, (including the journalist played by Lynne Thigpen). Roberts has replaced Bob Dylan as the "voice of his generation" (Robbins includes a hilarious riff on Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick Blues" video from "Don't Look Back"). Robbins' real target here is how the ideals of the 60s have failed miserably, how times have changed back, and how greed, self-interest and intolerance have become the new order of the 1990s (and continue today). Roberts is *not* George Bush (senior or junior)--he's a much more frightening animal who shows up just how the voices of dissent have dwindled into insignificance.