The Talkies: "An Unreasonable Man"

In 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader. The election occurred little more than a month after I began my freshman year of college. My political sensibilities were hazy and iconoclastic. In practice this often meant rebelling against the comfortable liberalism of my hometown, where Saabs, granola, and the honor system were unquestioned ways of life. I had no idea who I was going to vote for until a friend introduced me to the Ralph Nader campaign.

"An Unreasonable Man," a documentary by Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan, does an excellent job of capturing the appeal that Nader held for young people like me. Voting for Nader showed that you were informed, intelligent, idealistic, and willing to take on the status quo. Most importantly, Nader convinced people that they could make a tangible difference by relentlessly following their own beliefs. There is, of course, no better way to sell to the youth than to appeal to their vanity.

As Unreasonable documents, I was hardly the first or the last young American to rally to Ralph Nader. The film justifiably claims that the millions of consumers who benefitted from Nader's influence as a consumer advocate will probably never give him the recognition that he deserves. The first half of Unreasonable is thus a fitting testament to the debt America owes to Nader, and a welcome attempt to resurrect his image among liberals.

The party poopers appear in the form of two savvy liberal thinkers, The Nation's Eric Alterman and Todd Gitlin, who are given airtime to voice their grievances with Nader, but whose criticisms are portrayed more as indulgences than legitimate observations. The issue in question, naturally, was Nader's ill-fated run for president in 2000, along with the far more disturbing rejoice that he exhibited following Al Gore's supposed defeat.

The film duly rehashes the major arguments: One side claims Nader's candidacy threw the election to George W. Bush, the other that Democratic missteps did far more damage than Nader, who was not deliberately trying to sabotage Gore. The claims are presented and elaborated without shedding much new light or arriving at any clear resolution. The truth, it seems to me, is that both views are correct. What's most shocking is the inability of liberals on both sides of the Nader debate to understand why the Republicans have been so successful in setting the nation's political agenda. The conservative strategy is articulated by Buchanan in the film, but is treated largely as a historical artifact. It appeared to have totally bypassed the audience at my screening, which used the Q&A time at the end of the film to pose questions about multiparty elections in Cuba (????) and rail against Nancy Pelosi's failure to pass a measure cutting funds for American troops actively fighting in Iraq.

Unreasonable is a fine tribute to a distinguished career and a competent look at one of the most rancorous debates among American liberals. But perhaps most importantly, it demonstrates how completely liberals have failed to challenge a fringe conservative ideology that has become political orthodoxy. Nader has yet to couch his anti-corporate efforts into a coherent political platform that can compete with the socially conservative, anti-government frenzy that conservatives have stroked for 30 years. Perhaps, as Sean Wilentz has claimed, the issues are simply not compelling enough. In any case, it's worthwhile to note that the Birkenstock liberals at my screening angrily jeered a question about labor organizing from a US postal worker simply because they thought his question was taking too long. The sooner the left realizes that elections are not won in debates at the Commonwealth Club or graduate school seminars, the better it will be for America.

As a longtime admirer of Nader, I fully support his right to run when he wants and campaign where he chooses. I think the nation as a whole would benefit from the inclusion of third party candidates, including Nader, in televised debates. But I would also contend that voters who truly believe in progressive ideals have the responsibility not to vote for him. Nader sent the Democrats a message in 2000, but where has it left us? The Democrats are no more liberal than they were seven years ago. Nader has become a pariah and the fallout has affected the ability of progressive groups like Public Citizen to do their jobs effectively. It is, as David Remnick has observed, painful to note how different the nation might be had Al Gore been elected in 2000. In 2004 I voted for John Kerry. In 2008, I will vote for Edwards, Obama, or even Clinton. Progress may sometimes depend on the unreasonable man. But just as often, it falls to those who can compromise for the common good.

The Talkies: "Miami Vice"

Miami Vice follows the saga of two Miami detectives, Crockett (Colin Farrell) and Tubbs (Jamie Foxx), who find themselves punching the clock for municipal police department one minute and smuggling dope as undercover federal agents the next. Indeed, their rapid transformation is just one instance of the warp speed transitions that characterize the film. Foxx plays the antithesis of his unassuming everyman role in Collateral, another collaboration with Mann, and brings an air of confidence, intensity, and brashness to Tubbs. Farrell's portrayal of Crockett is earnest but uneven, and not helped by an accent that would make Eliza Doolittle squirm with discomfort. I often found myself wondering what Vice could have been with a different actor in the lead role.

Mann's ability to fuse sound and image into a brilliantly realized whole is on fine display from the start. It is no exaggeration to say that his scenes are fully rendered, immaculately structured environments. The opening credits blink through in bold cerulean characters that radiate coolness. Shades of blue remain a constant throughout, lending the film an air of beautiful tragedy that brings to mind Picasso's "Old Guitarist." The set pieces, whether they are crowded night clubs, glass-walled beach front condos, or tense showdowns between heavily armed men, are mesmerizing even when they seem contrived. While Vice lacks the visceral power of Mann's Heat and Collateral, its visual power is superior. A.O. Scott has described Vice as an action film for those who like art movies, and vice versa. The description is apt. Vice demands that viewers suspend their disbelief when it shows two city detectives roaring past traffic in a fully outfitted Corvette, tearing across the water in supersonic speedboats, and chilling at a swanky club that ought to have denied Farrell access based on his grooming habits alone. But the spectacles that Mann has created make that sacrifice worthwhile.

What prevents Vice from rising to the level of Mann's strongest films is the glue that connects these spectacles together. The romance between Crockett and the drug smuggler Isabella (improbably played by Chinese megastar Gong Li) is an interesting wrinkle plot-wise, but in practice it drags the middle of the film down like a sodden mass. We understand that the two lovers are supposed to be star-crossed lost souls who find each other only to go inexorably off on their separate ways. But Li's performance, while compelling due to her screen presence alone, dashes from icy detachment to bubbly effusiveness seemingly without pause or explanation. Clearly we are meant to see her as a self-made businesswoman and power broker, but the ease with which she slides into a risky relationship with conflict of interest written all over it demonstrates a lack of business savvy on par with that of an American auto company.

Farrell tries his best to emote subtly and convincingly, but too often comes across as high school actor trying too hard. His almost comically exaggerated facial expressions and lack of screen charisma stand in stark contrast to Foxx and most of the excellent supporting cast. In fairness, his character is given less to work with than Foxx's. The context that Mann often provides his other characters, such as the brief glimpse into the dysfunctional family life of Al Pacino's detective in Heat, or the quiet stolen moments before the storm that he gave Foxx in Collateral, is largely denied to Crockett in Vice. All the same, it was difficult for me to consider the inclusion of Farrell with anything other than a sense of regret.

Ultimately, the strengths of Miami Vice are its sheer sensuality and, as befits a Mann film, its portrayal of the best and worst aspects of men (relentlessly) at work. Vice is weakest when it attempts to do too much. As the film zigzags between characters and across country lines, it loses the narrative intensity that Mann captured in his best films by fully fleshing out the nobleness and tragedy of human nature. Perhaps heavier editing (the film weighs in at a hefty 140 minutes) or different actors would have pushed Vice into the pantheon of Mann's signature films. In any case, the film is a pleasure to watch.