The Hunting of the President

Gene Lyons and Joe Conason's book THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT had no photos of the major players, a real shame when you have a huge cast and no way to keep the players straight . Seeing the film brings the faces of some of the story's less well-known personalities--the Dogpatch types from Arkansas (such as the bait shop owner and the Arkansas troopers), the White Supremacists, and the members of the Arkansas Project--into the light of day...Susan McDougal emerges from this film a bona fide hero, as she should. I thought I knew this area of the story well, but there are chilling details about her treatment by the Independent Counsel that are shockingly disturbing...The film doesn't try to excuse Clinton's behavior vis-a-vis Monica Lewinski; the real outrage, it suggests, is the abuse of power within the Office of the Independent Counsel. For that it makes a very strong case. A powerful film indeed.

This film has some major problems. One,it explains almost nothing. Even if you paid close attention in the '90s to the "deep-in-the-weeds" details of Whitewater and the pre-Monica sexual allegations against Clinton---this movie not only assumes you understood this stuff to begin with, but that you remember it too. Mistake. If you are looking for a movie that will shed some light on these subjects, this isn't it.

Second,the director constantly interrupts the storyline with flashes to clips of "gangsters" or "train crashes" which I assume are supposed to imply the dastardliness of the "hunters of the president". The impact is distracting to the viewer and trivializes the subject at hand. If a class of sophomores somewhere were asks to dramatize this subject, I have the feeling this is what they would come up with.

Weak effort.

This movie is prime material for those on one or the other side of the issue, so it might be hard for its target audience (or those who would see it to refute it -- the tone of the first post leads one to infer that sort of thing occurs too). I personally thought President Clinton showed a lack of public integrity in his actions -- having an affair in the White House while an investigation is going on about his sex habits in AR, and stonewalling when it came out. I also had mixed feelings about some of his politics.

Still, we are talking a matter of degree here. It is hard to look at the facts, even without a Friend of Bill being involved as here, and not see the excesses. This film does a pretty good job at touching upon some of them (I have not read the book it was based on by a Arkansas reporter and Joe Conanson). It clearly is not neutral, though the situation makes it hard to be. One thing it doesn't do is totally exonerate Clinton. Various of the talking heads noted they were upset or worse about his whole Monica fiasco. It just thought it was not worthy of impeachment and victimization of a lot of little people. Whitewater was shown to be a whole lot of smoke no fire both by a report and the ind. counsel as well. Enron it was not.

Facts are shown. The movie starts off a bit fake with a lot of clips from old movies and a tone right out of a cut rate film noir movie to "sex" up the proceedings to keep our interest. It also hypes up the "conspiracy" angle a bit too much. This sort of heavyhandedness is ratcheted down some by the half way point, especially with the entrance of Susan McDougal, the heroine of the film. The portrayal is one-sided (troubling, even if she's totally innocent), but quite emotional and effective. The account of the pressure put on her to plea and her time in jail was particularly emotional.

So, mixed result -- there is a pretty strong case that abuses were carried out, good evidence that a lot of the parties against Clinton were suspicious and led more by hate and distaste than the facts, and some evidence of a lot of additional shadiness. It would have helped if the film interviewed someone to dispute Susan M., and likely such a p.o.v. was in the book. Overall, tries to prove too much, but there is enough "there" there to be worth watching to remember and get a flavor of the doings in AR.

How did we come to be here? That was a question asked during President Clinton's impeachment proceedings and this film sets out to answer it by stepping back in time to the start of his political rise. The documentary charts the many and varied attempts to undermine Bill Clinton as President and see him removed from office whether it be for murder, sex, corruption or just plain lying. Or at least that is the story it tries to tell but somehow it manages to take what should have been a fascinating thesis and turn it into a jumbled documentary that seems to think that old movie footage and comic asides are somehow going to help it build its case.

It is of course wrong because the film manages to somehow take this investigation and mostly f**k it up. The delivery is terrible from start to finish. The first and biggest problem is that it assumes that you know all about the subject, the people and the players and it starts with this knowledge a given. Now I appreciate that when you deal with a subject everyday, it is easy to forget that the majority of others don't live in your world but for the makers of a documentary it is quite unforgivable a mistake to make. The fast pace of delivery also means that once you are being left behind you're done for and I was barely coping with all the new names and events that I was supposedly meant to have read up on before the film. Of course as a liberal I'm meant to think this film is brilliant just because it criticises the right (which is the only reason I can figure for this film being so highly rated on IMDb).

The contributors are not all that impressive either. They all have plenty to say but the most important people are notable by their absence – understandable perhaps but damaging to a film so heavily reliant on interviews. The delivery issues didn't stop with the actual material though because I also had issue with the comic "film clips" used to illustrate points for no real reason. I can see that they were stealing the idea from Michael Moore but it doesn't sit in the middle of the mostly laugh-free material and thus only detracts from the film.

Overall then an interesting subject given shoddy treatment in a pretty poor documentary. It asks much of the viewer but offers little in return and, although Democrats will lap up any opportunity to see the Right taking a kicking but this alone does not make it a documentary worth seeing – not by a long shot.

This documentary revealed in a narrative style, how shockingly powerful the campaign to destroy Bill Clinton was.

The documentary ran like a thesis paper. Each statement was backed up by several facts, with at least one reputable political figure backing it up. There were also several confessions from well know republicans involved as well.

The narrative style backed up by Morgan Freeman's dark voice provided yet another bonus.

It truly provides an insight you've never seen. It changed my views on Clinton and how far certain political partys will go to get their way.

Music- 4 Out of 5 Narration- 5 Out of 5 Proof- 5 Out of 5

Overall- 9.5 Out of 10