Miss Sloane, an under-rated movie

"Miss Sloane"(2016) deserved much more attention.   There is a lot of misdirection in the movie, but the meat is not hard for many of us to find.

It starts off with a court scene concerning expenses for a campaign dealing with palm oil from Indonesia.  A viewer wonders what that could lead to, but the misdirection slowly becomes more obvious as they go back in time and two other themes develop; the legal concern of gun control and how lobbying firms operate.

Miss Sloane is approached by a group that wants to get a woman's view of guns so that they could slant their approach more effectively.  She analyzes their situation in short order and rejects the offer.  Next she is approached by a man who tries to hire her for the opposing side on gun control, but again another sharp analysis and a rejection.  However she changes her mind and literally steals some of her staff to her new project regarding gun control legislation.  One of her staff very coldly rejects her and a nasty interchange takes place.  This holdout offers her insight into Miss Sloane's tactics that we later see enacted.  No loyalty, ruthless, and not confiding with staff,

Miss Sloane articulates her basic approach.  Always be prepared.  Do whatever it takes.  Have a trump card that is not used until after the opposition presents their trump card.

Although the director and writer claim the issue of gun control is really just one of many issues that could have been used for the plot they cover a lot of ground for gun control.  There is not an intention to confiscate guns, but just to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.  Of course the gun lobby sees this a step along a slippery slope.  

The woman's issue is brought up.  The angle is women need protection against bad people.  This is  countered that women are murdered most often by an intimate partner with access to a gun.  The gun lobby specifically fanned fear suggesting the only way to be safe was to have a gun.  All veteran sales people realize that the strongest buying motive is fear, even more so than greed.  Both motivations are on full display.

An argument comparing the acceptance of the need for driver's licence as a concern for human safety is dismissed.   In reality the U.S. Congress in 1996 passed a rule forbidding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from advocating or promoting gun control.  The CDC board over the years to avoid controversy cut all research into gun violence  After the Newtown shootings, Obama requested research to be resumed, but again fearing controversy the CDC said they would only do so if money was set aside for it. Congress rejected any budget for such research.

The Founding Fathers were brought up.  Most people overlook that the circumstances were very different as one example many of the founders were slave owners. The Constitution was a result of compromises between propertied  men (not women) with vested interests.  The 2nd amendment was brought to legislation at a time when America did not have a standing army and it was thought necessary to provide militia with arms.  Of course there is a lot of controversy of interpretation.  What is in the best interest of the country?

The gun lobby always had much more money.  They really represented gun manufacturers.  Miss Sloane is very clever and manages to get a lot of her points to public attention.  In fact she is so good it is decided to take her down.  That is where the opening scene brings our attention to an alleged misdeed when she dealt with the Indonesian palm oil.  If they can prove her misdeed in this case she will be finished as a lobbyist and the gun lobby can rest easy.

Of course you know there will be a twist and it is done quite well.  A few minor twists along the way keep the viewer's attention.   My wife is always suspicious, but I thought the movie could have impact no matter how it concluded.  The final twist package emphasized how slimy lobbying can be and did catch me off guard.

"House of Cards" shows plenty of sleazy manipulations   Lobbyists are in the background.  "Miss Sloane" uses an emotionally charged issue, gun control, but the real focus should be on lobbying, which has seldom been pictured in movies where the politicians essentially do all the dirty work.

The author, Jonathan Perera has a story as interesting as his script.  After graduating from university with a lot of debt he worked a few years with corporate law firms to pay off the debt.  He later taught English in China and more recently in South Korea.  He had longed to be a writer, but had no background and studied online as best he could.  He was originally inspired by a tv interview of Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist who confessed his tricks.  He wrote the script and filed it away until he learned the topic might be of interest.  He sent it while still working in South Korea.  This is his first script.

John Madden, the director, British born received his one Oscar nomination for "Shakespeare in Love," (1998), but three of his actors won Oscars, Gwyneth Paltrow, Judi Dench and Geoffrey Rush.  He also directed 4 episodes of "Inspector Morse," and one episode of "Prime Suspect," two of my favorite British detective shows.  Other notable movies were "The Debt," (2010), "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" (2011) and "The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel," (2015).

Jessica Chastain plays the ruthless lobbyist.  When you think you appreciate how ruthless she is you get another example that stuns.  With a little observation a viewer might pick up that she is not satisfied with life.  Jessica had received two Oscar nominations in addition for this role. She received nominations for "Zero Dark Thirty," (2012) and  "The Help," (2011).   She also had a role in "The Martian," (2015).

Mark Strong plays a character with a cause, but enough ethics that he balks at when he learns what Miss Sloan does to win her causes.  Mark has been in numerous movies; "The Young Victoria," (2004); "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy," (2011);  "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012) and "The Imitation Game," (2014).  He also appeared in episodes of "Inspector Morse" and "Prime Suspect."

Gugu Mbatha-Raw plays a dedicated worker with a personal secret that motivates her. When this is uncovered against her will she becomes a crusader for a bit, but later becomes disillusioned with Miss Sloan.  Gugu gained a lot of attention as the title character in "Belle," (2013) and went on to  "Concussion" (2015) and " Free State of Jones" (2016).  Just recently did a blog on the Free State of Jones" readers might enjoy:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/09/free-state-of-jones.html

Christine Baranski of "The Good Fight" and "The Good Wife"  in both of which she ironically took up role of gun control advocate, although married to ballistics expert. played a supporting role.  I was surprised to learn she had won Tony awards on Broadway.  Sam Waterson, another familiar face played one of the heavies.  John Lithgow and Dylan Baker had supporting roles as well.

Alison Pill, plays a character who is not what she appears to be.  She carries it off very well.  Born in Toronto she won a best child actress award for "The Dinosaur Hunt," (2000).  She had roles in "Milk" (2008);  "Scott Pilgrim vs The World (2010) "Midnight in Paris," as Zelda Fitzgerald (2011) and "To Rome with Love" (2012).

Max Richter composed the music.  He has been a composer for a number of movies I have enjoyed."The Lunchbox" (2013); "Sarah's Key" (2010); "When We Leave" (2010) and "Lore" (2012) all with foreign languages plus "Shutter Island," (2010).  The funny thing is although I remember they all were good movies, I don't recall the music.  I reviewed some of the music items on iTunes and for the most part they are pleasant enough and catch a mood, but with few exceptions not memorable.  Still he is very good at filling a function.  Supporting a movie with music is not always noticed, but adds to the overall enjoyment and I would say he has added enjoyment for a lot of movie goers.

The cinematographer, Sebastian Bienkov  had been busy working with European films, one of which "Adam's Apples" (2005) from Denmark was very good.  Alexander Berner, the editor had worked on "Cloud Atlas," (2012);  "A Hologram for the King," (2016) and "The Debt" (2010).

Did the gun lobby have anything to do with lack of box office success?  One can detect political views affecting how movies are perceived and supported--I am not immune to movies being hyped and I did see some promotional efforts, but it was never treated like a blockbuster.   It seems like an attention getting powerful movie, but not everyone saw it that way.  Personally I feel lobbyists didn't like it as it hit too close to home.  If there wasn't a formal boycott, I think it very likely there was an informal one.  I confess I tend to avoid movies with political viewpoints I disagree with, but also that such movies can help one realize there is another perspective that needs to be understood.

I do believe that lobbyists can serve an important and useful function.  I hope we don't throw out the baby with the bath water.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/04/lobbyists-do-deserve-more-appreciation.html

The film titles that are bolded are ones that I have seen, although some may be from many years ago

Lobbyists do deserve more appreciation

Lobbyists have a bad rap.  Probably much of it is deserved, but the essential underlying role they play is crucial for society to survive and thrive.  The key phrase used against them is "special interest." Sounds terrible, but each of us has our own special interests and few of us have the resources to make sure our special interests are understood and respected.  When you break down your special interests they include your job, age, ethnic background, location, medical conditions, gender, sexual orientation, hobbies, environment, etc. etc.  There is someone advocating for some of your interests or maybe against them all the time.

A lobbyist is really a salesman representing an idea.  A good idea deserves a hearing.  Too many good ideas do not really get a fair hearing and we all lose when that is the case.  

Your political representative uses or should use your geography as their base of concern.  Most jurisdictions are based on geography whether elected or bureaucratic and we do share concerns (special interests) with our neighbours.  In addition to your narrow concerns you should be concerned about the rest of the world, because whether you understand it or not it is all inter-related to what you do value.

Each special interest needs advocates or they will not achieve proper attention.  An elected representative cannot be an expert in all the fields that affect their constituents.  There are many new and/or unknown issues and opportunities that should be advocated.  It takes a lot of effort to get a new idea adopted that can benefit a wider audience.  A good lobbyist (salesperson) is responsible for progress.  The elected politician needs to analyze the factors of any issue and make a logical fair decision.  Sometimes they do not calculate right and in other times they give more weight to one side perhaps because they are rewarded for doing so.

The bad image is deserved to the extent that a lobbyist has disproportionate influence.  This usually comes from money but sometimes from traditions that have an overdue grip on us.  Money creates a problem because it can sway decisions that affect people who don't have more than a vote once every few years to affect that decision.  In most modern democracies it takes money to get elected, lots of it. A politician needs money to draw attention to themselves, to find out what the voters will vote for and to present themselves most favorably.

The more successful lobbyists seem to give big donations to political parties and candidates.  No one likes to say the donations affect any outcomes, but they certainly seem to open up access.

It has come to the point that most politicians spend much more of their time fundraising than they used to.  This of course dips into the time needed to actually serve their constituents.  They need to study issues from all angles, they need to discuss with others to better understand reasonable compromises.  Political donations come with a price.  At the very least that price includes time away from their real duties.

To get elected is much more complicated than having the best policies that benefit the most people. There are so many different issues that when narrowing your vote down to only two choices (theoretically more in many jurisdictions) how the policies are packaged and presented is critical.  Of course there are the general categories of conservative and liberal, but that doesn't always work for most of us).  As one general example none of us really want to pay taxes, but we all expect as much service as possible.

The ideal is to have a level field for an election.  Admittedly that Utopian ideal is inconceivable when you think hard on the matter.  But we need to work towards it and a big factor is tied to money.  Why should it take a colossal amount of money to get elected?  Why can't candidates be given an equal platform to present and debate their policies?  One problem I admit is that the voters are not all committed to making an open minded effort to evaluate all the different issues that impact on their society.  Politicians of course know this and try to use all the resources they can command to get their message out to voters in such a way a prospective voter will feel an emotional resonance.  Un- fortunately politicians have learned that negative messages about their opponents can also influence the results.  Distortions are all too common.  Politicians avoid being pinned down--personally I sympathize with that, but they should be able to convey their general philosophy and run on some kind of a track record.

Money requirements are supposed to eliminate frivolous candidates, but it also eliminates many earnest competent people.  I would add that before someone is eligible for the higher offices, they should have some experiences at lower offices.  This is not intended to eliminate successful people from other fields, but force them to gain some government experience before given a chance to manage at a higher post.

For a level election it is obvious to me that each candidate should have equal access to the voters. We could put resources to better use by avoiding ad wars.  Only individuals should be allowed to contribute small amounts.  An elected official cannot really be forced to listen to everyone, but at least voters should have the option to vote for someone else.  A smart politician will listen to everyone--even those they do not agree with or whose association would be criticized.  What a politician can accept from a lobbyist should be very strictly limited.

A big loser in my proposal would be the media.  There might be a slight shaking out and rationalization of how they use their resources to attract an audience.

Lobbyists should be registered and their salaries made public (maybe including their expenses). There should be no shame in their success as long as based on merits.  There are at least two sides to every story and you have to give some credit to the person who presents their case more effectively. If you happen to be on the other side you need to find a more effective way of presenting your case. What distorts this procedure is bribery.

Bribery might be difficult to pin down and one can be sure efforts will be made to bend the rules.  As a salesman I understand the benefits of giving someone a sample to test.  If something is expensive the test should not include ownership.  A lot of room for interpretation, but the start towards true democracy is to diminish the role of money, not the honest function of a lobbyist

An excellent movie that illustrates the problem lobbyists is "Miss Sloane."  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/09/miss-sloan-under-rated-movie.html