Random Thoughts On the Movie "Recount"

If you haven't seen this you should. The lead actor these days is in another great program, Burn Notice.

This movie was much more interesting and well done than I anticipated. It is very well done. I was especially impressed by Laura Dern who managed what I thought impossible: Making former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris seem almost sympathetic human.

Media coverage of this movie and its inaccuracies (some are spelled out here), along with some recent documentaries I've reviewed recently, is what sparked my essay on the nature of truth and the media.

I showed this movie at my Unitarian church but only two people showed up: the two who brought it. They fell asleep which was a nice bit of symbolism as many at the church didn't attend the discussion saying they didn't want to relive their feelings and frustrations over the election.

The scenes about the protest made the Republicans look like zombies. I have a hard time believing that protest was, as the movie suggests, akin to the Night of the Living Dead. (Speaking of horror movies I've always been more a fan of Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness than, say, Wes Craven, liking a bit of humor with my horror) .

The movie made me realize how much I miss The West Wing, particularly because it accomplished something many, prior to that series, thought could not be done, namely make issues some would see as arcane and boring (such as census statistics) not only interesting and intellectually stimulating but also interesting.

I also remembered, like it was yesterday, when I met Al Gore about one month after the election.

The New York Times review of the movie notes an interesting overlap in history between the movie and current events:

Recount" is not satire; it's a mordantly serious look at a moment when character, political influence and luck fatefully collided. And it comes at a time when Americans are once again passionately interested in elections and at a juncture where Florida is once again a critical factor in yet another tight and tenaciously fought contest for the Oval Office. Now that Senator Barack Obama has an insurmountable lead in the number of delegates, it is the specter of Florida in 2000 that lends a strand of sustainability to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's defiant challenge to her party's rules committee to include Florida and Michigan in the delegate tally. Not every vote does end up counted, and sometimes the system favors the most persistent candidate. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear," Mrs. Clinton said in Boca Raton on Wednesday. "If any votes aren't counted, the will of the people isn't realized, and our democracy is diminished."

Just as Clinton and her supporters don't want to give up, the same was true with Gore supporters, who didn't want to let setbacks stop them.

As recently as, well, right now, Delores is talking about how Hillary can still win this thing, which reminds me of people who still refuse to acknowledge that Bush won –or as some put it "won" - the race.

So I'll end this the way the Times ends its review and see what reaction it draws:

In 2000 Republicans viewed Mr. Gore as the incumbent vice president seeking to misuse all the resources and unfair advantages of the executive branch, while Democrats suspected that Mr. Bush's brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, would do the same to control the state election apparatus. Each side saw the Florida count through the prism of past injustices and present threats; each side believed God and the final tally were on its side.

That's why many viewers were shocked when, in a recent "60 Minutes" interview on CBS, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia airily dismissed questions about the 2000 Supreme Court decision.

"Get over it," Justice Scalia said. "It's so old by now."

"Recount" proves Justice Scalia dead wrong.

Back To Top