PRESIDENCY IN FILM AND TV Conference is
    timely for both the presidency and film....


Film & History Conference is coming up, November 10-12 in
Los Angeles......And Hollywood has obliged us by coming forward
with a "Presidency in Film" production to comment on our times
and our issues.

If this topic interests folks, please check our web site for copious
information on this topic, to include a few essays and a chronology
of Presidential films.

    www.filmandhistory.org

The below is an informal posting and not a scholarly essay, so please
respond on the issues rather than cluttering the airwaves with picks
of the knit...

Peter C. Rollins
Editor, Film & History
www.filmandhistory.org

(This message is being sent in two parts due to the parameters
demanded by the L-SCREEN computer program.)
__________________________________________________


PART I.


THE CONTENDER (New film, October, 2000)
    (See various internet sites for reviews and credits.)

    THE CONTENDER is a "Presidential film" currently in circulation at a
theatre
near you....The plot involves the nomination of a female senator from Ohio
("the mother of Presidents") whose "character" and gender are opposed by
a nasty WASP Representative from Illinois who happens to be the Chair of the
Judiciary Committee assigned to vet her credentials.

    As the Senator from Ohio, Laine Hanson (Joan Allen) is a surprise
nominee since everyone in the Democratic Party plus the Republicans
expects President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges) to select a very popular
Senator and war hero, Jack Hathaway (William Peterson).  Even the
Republican Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Shelly
Runyon (Gary Oldman) considers Senator Hanson to be a light weight
and opts for Hathaway.

    To discredit Hanson, a file is developed concerning her supposed
sexual promiscuity during college years.  This issue evolves into a
discussion
of the relevance of personal life vs. public life, a topic of great
significance to most Americans during the years in which Bill Clinton has
been the President.   Hanson refuses to discuss the subject during the
confirmation hearings and the film comes down heavily in her favor--thereby
 making a very strong statement on the issue just prior to the Presidential
election of 2000.  (Translation:  Private peccadilloes are irrelevant to
public
 performance in office.)

    The issue of a woman candidate for the Vice Presidency is important
within the context of the 2000 election since neither majority party has
opted
to have such a candidate on its slate--although both Ralph Nader and Pat
Buchanan have such running mates.  In this regard, the credits provide a
statement that the film is "For our Daughters."  This reminder that women
are not part of the political process is timely and calls into question a
number of assertions of the film--as a critique of our current political
options during
Campaign 2000.


    For discussion purposes, I would assert that this film is Hollywood's
 attempt to put its agenda and point of view on record in an election where
 the spectrum of choice between the candidates is so narrow.   Ralph Nader
has stated the case for reconsideration by his own candidacy and by his claim
that there is so little difference between Republican George W. Bush and
Democrat Al Gore ("Tweeddle Dum and Tweedle Dee").   Nader is on
the mark, but this narrowness of political options is not terribly new.  Way
back in the 1950s, Louis Hartz wrote about the problem and its roots in
his famous study The Liberal Tradition in America (1953).

During the hearings, Representative Runyon (Gary Oldman)  presses
Senator Hanson (Joan Allen) to the breaking point.  Finally, in her closing
statement to the Judiciary Committee, she steps forward with here credo:

1. She is an atheist who believes in the holiness of America's legislative
process and the complete separation of church and state.

    Current: Neither Gore nor Bush would dare such a position.

2. She believes in a woman's right to choose on the issue of abortion.

Current: Gore agrees, but has qualifications.

3. She supports total gun control.  (No guns in homes.)

Current: Neither candidate would dare such a position.

4. She believes that the military should be powerful so that it can
prevent genocide around the globe.

Current: Seems to justify Clinton efforts in Balkans, but to
        criticize inaction in Africa where millions have
        been slaughtered.

5. She believes that personal life and values are separate from professional
life and values.

Current:  Seems to exculpate Bill Clinton.

6. She opposes the death penalty.

    Current:  Neither candidate would dare to take this position.


While our forthcoming conference on The Presidency in Film and TV
will not examine this film, it seems clear that it fits into the tradition of
THE IMAGINARY PRESIDENTS.

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu