The Hunting of
the President
is the movie form of the book of the same name by Gene Lyons and Joe
Conason (both of whom make appearances here). The film lays out
evidence for what could be seen, as Hillary Clinton put it, as a
“Vast, right-wing conspiracy” to bring down her husband. Both
Clintons were hounded in the legal system and through the media for
various transgressions throughout President’s tenure, but the feeding
frenzy resulted in surprisingly little to indict either of them with,
and seemed to stem from a motivation to discredit him using whatever
means necessary rather than to get at any real truth. Whether
President Clinton lied under oath or had sex with an intern after
all the investigations were begun is not disputed, but a look at the
level of scrutiny both Clintons were put under reveals what the
filmmakers consider abuses of power by the independent counsel and
other political figures, and also a case of “groupthink” by members of
the mainstream media.
CRITIQUE
Though
Fahrenheit 9/11 got all the press at the
time, the lesser-known The Hunting of the President quietly
went into and out of theaters without nearly the same fanfare.
Hunting shared some of the themes Michael Moore’s latest film, but
it doesn’t share the same tone or the approach at all. I have to
admit, the fact that Hunting doesn’t have much entertainment or
excitement value in it (and in fact that it drags a little bit in the
middle) is actually kind of encouraging.
Why that might
be is because emotions tend to run way too high for people to actually
watch political documentaries without hearing only what they want to
hear. On the other side of it, I don’t think the viewer should need
to have the mental equivalent of x-ray vision in order to see how a
filmmaker might be using information in a misleading way. So with all
that in mind, I think I mainly like The Hunting of the President
because it is anti-sensational: It doesn’t have Moore’s flash or
humor, but it does make a thoughtful examination of its subject matter
by presenting its evidence piece by piece.
Better still
that the film should be released now that the whole series of affairs
(Troopergate, Whitewater, etc.) are over and we can look back,
hopefully to realize how overly scandalized a lot of this was. How
some of the other parties involved went through much of this with
untarnished reputations while selling garbage like “The Clinton
Chronicles” remains a mystery to me. An employee fired for raising
funds for the Contras in Nicaragua (Larry Nichols) can turn around and
sell a story to a tabloid for $50,000 that the man who fired him (Bill
Clinton) had had sex with several women as governor of Arkansas. He
can then go on to narrate his own so-called documentary (The Clinton
Chronicles) describing President Clinton as a drug smuggler,
embezzler, and murderer, and yet charges like these are still taken
seriously. One upside to this fiasco: The outtakes of Paula Jones
from the film are hilarious (e.g., “Whaddaya call ‘em, Democrats?”).
But even for all
the exaggerations being reported, the film does an excellent job of
showing how the press was seduced into the possibility of having a
huge political story on its hands. It wasn’t an example of right-wing
bias in the news; it was a case of “Oh my gosh there’s another
Watergate happening and I HAVE TO GET A PIECE OF IT!” This mindset
ended up blowing the events portrayed way out of proportion, allowing
some extreme right-wing individuals and organizations to get a hold of
a great deal more clout than they would have otherwise been afforded.
That said, even
as a critique of the president’s “hunters,” the film has a few holes
left unfilled. Anne Coulter’s inclusion as an “elf” (one of the
people who assisted Paula Jones in her case against President Clinton
after her original lawyers were dismissed) is mentioned without any
substantiation. David Brock (the former conservative author of much
disinformation), also mentions the elves having connections to the
Federalist Society, but again, this is just a loose association that
hangs out there with no evidence to support it.
Loose
associations included, the film is still a focused look at what was
certainly a concerted effort to do literally anything to damage the
reputation of our 42nd president, and the complicity that
allowed it to very nearly happen.
THE VIDEO
The Hunting of
the President
is presented in 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen. The interview footage
obviously looks much better than the stock footage, but the anamorphic
widescreen aspect is a welcome feature.
THE AUDIO
The Hunting of
the President
is presented in 2.1 Dolby surround. Not exactly the most up to date
audio configuration, but considering the film is almost all dialog,
this isn’t a major point.
EXTRAS
Two extras are
included on the disc: The original trailer (self-explanatory)
and comments from Bill Clinton following the premiere screening
of the film. A director’s commentary, often included by default in
many DVDs that really shouldn’t have them, is thankfully left out.
Clinton’s remarks are worth hearing though, even if they are the only
substantial bonus material. Most interesting are his words concerning
how to deal with the people who tried to discredit him as a bad person
rather than by arguing against any of actual policies: “I think it’s
important that we not respond in kind. But instead, to argue and
fight on a different ground.” To address the issues rather than
demonize opponents in response to such ad hominem attacks is an important
message put forward in an age where most political books and films
appear to be nothing more than ego-boosters for like-minded people,
where the facts be damned.
FINAL THOUGHTS
For anyone
really interested in politics, Hunting is worth seeing. I
haven’t read the book and can’t comment on whether one does a better
job than the other, but the humanness inherent to the characters
portrayed in the film (especially Susan McDougal) may very well make
it the preferred medium. Again, this is one of those subjects that
gets people with the smallest of insights (from both sides of the
political spectrum) to start shouting at their loudest, but the best
part about this film is that it doesn’t buy into that. As President
Clinton said in his comments following the screening of the film, you
shouldn’t respond in kind to fallacious attacks, misinformation, or
outright lies. You should point them out and be critical of them, but
you should not use the same tactics in response. The fact that this
is what the film attempts to do is why it’s worth watching.
