"Man of the Year" Robin Williams Movie is about "Voting Machines/Diebold"

[KoKo]

but there's not much Buzz about the movie here on DU. Maybe I missed the BUZZ but....it might be something DU'ers would want to see. There's alot of Tweety Matthews in that movie...and lots of hidden messages and "in your face messages" and it's alot to take at one sitting...

But...it's interesting that the movie is out now. I saw it in a theater with only 20 people on a Friday Night. Is Robin Williams no longer popular? Where were all the people who should have been there on a Friday Night? Actually there were very few people in the whole CinePlex which has 8 theaters?

Where is everyone? The theater is in an area where folks can pay the tickets and get the popcorn and drink without feeling it will bust their budget...

Weird.

[Imagine My Surprise]

1. Glad to hear the subject content...

As for RW, perhaps karma has caught up with him. He became successful, in part at least, by stealing other people's material. Rolling Stone documented this in Oct 1988. As a comedian who has worked with him, I saw it first-hand. His thievery of others' material was/is? virtually a compulsion. As for why movie theaters are vacant these days, I think it's a sign of the times. Vaudeville went the way of the dodo bird. So are movie theaters.

[KoKo]

4. I don't know about RW's "issues" with material he uses....in this movie

he's clearly doing one liners about both Repug and Dem hypocracy and whoever made it is exposing the "touch screen" machines. It's about a President who is elected because of a "Touch Screen" machine and a heroic employee who is fired but feels it's her honor to inform the "comedian P-Resident (Williams Character) that he was NOT ELECTED.

She is targeted to be killed by the makers of the machines and those who wanted the DRE Machine Elected P-Resident to stay President.

Lots of Williams political stabbing jokes and intrigue and Tweety Matthews announcing Bogus Election results on Election Night. Tweety had a big thing on one of his shows this week promoting the movie and Williams. Made me wonder about Tweety...that he wants his name associated with a movie that exposes "Touch Screen Voting Fraud."

[SoCalDem]

8. and think about who GOES to movies

I mean who goes A LOT. Teenagers with money. People out on dates.

Once people have kids, it becomes harder and harder to "go out"..

Theatres that want to make money have to show movies that cater to their broadest audience.

They like to show movies that kids will see over and over and recommend to all their pals..

Robin's era was the 80's..he's getting a bit "long in the tooth" and his audience has kind of moved on to child care issues, I would suspect.

Those people and us oldsters are content to rent it or wait for it on tv..

[Junkdrawer]

2. I just saw the movie *SPOILERS*....

Robin Williams plays a Jon Stewart type comedian that runs as an independent. Through an innocent *glitch* (having to do with the spelling of his name) he wins. The love interest is a computer program manager that discovers and reports the glitch before the election, but is ignored because the owners are silicon valley types who want their stock price to remain high.

There's a few good one-liners about computer voting machines ("Why do we trust our democracy to machines with less security than Las Vegas slots") but there's no hint of anyone purposely throwing elections to gain/maintain power.

Mixed bag. Good to see the issue raised - disappointed to see that, once again, insider fraud is ignored as even a possibility.

[KoKo]

6. I think they went as far as they could go with the issues, though. After

all...it was clear enough to those of us who know about the DRE Machines what they were getting at in the movie. So, I think they had to soft pedal the "throwing the elections" to try to get a "mainstream" audience.

Don't you think? I thought it was pretty hard hitting as it was and very plain about the culpability of the Voting Machine maker when after he's elected the company flies him around on their private plane before the inauguration.

Anyway...it was interesting...but I don't think most viewers will get it and it was heavy hitting enough that it just depressed me... The movie is too late to do any good...sadly. I felt it was Hollywood throwing a bone to those of us who've been on top of this since Selection 2000. Sort of a "We hear ya! We're thinking of ya!" When this movie should have been done before 2004 Selection or shortly after it.

I hope it gets more of an audience than it had tonight where I am in my Red State that has some Blue. Did you have a big crowd when you saw it in your theater? :shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

7. I went at a giant mall that declared bankruptcy 6 month after it opened...

"How do we revive this down trodden community, Fred?"

"I know Bert, let's open a giant, upscale mall."

The crowds were small at all the movies shown. I could have given you a better gage if I went to my normal theater.

[KoKo]

9. Thanks....I'm wondering if movie attendance in general isn't down.

We don't go to alot of movies...but every time we've gone in the last year...there are so few people there. And we go to the multi-plexes...

I think kiddie movies still get some opening night buzz...but the others don't seem to have many folks there at all. Maybe it's just our taste in movies or something.

[KoKo]

11. Kicking in case folks have seen it since my post on it last night!

:kick:

[Lisa]

15. I've got a theory on why they backed down on that point ...

It would have shifted the focus of the movie considerably. The voting machine company comes out looking pretty bad here, no matter what. If they made the corporate CEOs in league with one or the other of the major parties, there wouldn't be as much of a dilemma for Laura Linney (as the programmer), trying to decide whether or not to come forward. As it is, the plot involves enough scheming (around the profit and error-coverup motives). Since the movie doesn't implicitly state that the "error" was deliberate (though a viewer could probably go through the film and point out hints that it still might be), instead of being faced with conventional "bust open the political conspiracy" story, she can now struggle with whether to ignore the mistake because someone whom she likes (and might actually do a good job) has mistakenly been installed in power.

After all, Dobbs does appear to "win" the election, and if the thing had been deliberately fixed, either he would have to be some type of villain, or a puppet of the real villains (which would actually make for quite an interesting movie, though a different and much more sinister one than is shown here).

I saw it as an attempt to reach out to the segment of the population who voted for Bush in 2004 (and possibly in 2000 too) and who are now wavering. The filmmakers might be saying, "Okay -- let's imagine that your guy really is as kind, humble, and decent as his handlers claimed -- what would his response have been to not actually winning the election?" (Note the considerable parallels with the early-1990s film "Dave", where the "president" cedes power to the rightful leader, and both he and the audience are secure in the belief that we won't suffer because of this .... in that movie, Ben Kingsley as the vice president was depicted as much better qualified, and in this one, the Democratic incumbent and actual winner is shown to be more trustworthy than his Republican challenger.)

Personally I would have liked to have seen this movie come out before the 2004 election instead -- but people may not have been as aware about electronic voting problems then.

[Sydnie]

3. I have been talking about this movie all week

and have announced that I will see it this weekend to my family. I am not a big go to the theater type usually, and I have had a hell of a time trying to fit it into my schedule for the weekend as I had wanted. I might have to wait and go see it Monday afternoon instead.

I WILL see this movie in the theaters. I WILL support it in it's first run in the theaters. I WILL use it to talk to people about the real issues facing us in the voting booth and in our government.

I happened to catch Robin on Hardball and he was a riot. They will be replaying that show over the weekend too. Catch it if you missed it. It was very good.

[clydefrand]

5. Friday the 13th. Everyone afraid? :-) I went to see the movie

this evening. Thought it was great! We went with 2 other couples and they really liked it as well. The theater we were in was almost full. I love Robin Williams. He can play serious roles; funny roles; really weird roles, and I still love him. I saw him at VA Tech years ago. I laughed so hard that my cheeks were hurting and my sides were painful the next day. I'm one of those laugh-out-loud kind of people.

I agree the movie is very pertinent and had great lines. His debate was everything we here at DU discuss. Kinda wish he could become president. But I'm sure it would be Diebolded for sure...well Delacroryed as in the movie.

I can't remember the Republican candidate's name. Do you remember?

I'm old and have CRS! :-)

[KoKo]

10. The President's name (Williams Character) was Dobbs!

I had to chuckle wondering why they picked that one. I don't remember the first name though. I thought the Delacroy Voting Machine was funny because of the "D" for Diebold.. :D

[lectrobyte]

12. It wasn't Bob Dobbs, was it? If so, subgenius reference

http://www.subgenius.com

Pra' Bob!

[Stardust]

13. Tom Dobbs.

[Lisa]

14. those who do go -- note that Lewis Black gets some good lines

(some spoilers here)



















For example, his statement that people tend to confuse what's on television with what is actually true. Points like this might tend to get overlooked because even though Williams has toned down his hilarity, he can't help but draw audience attention, so the quieter and probably more significant quotes from the supporting cast, can be overshadowed.

I know that the film's garnered some mixed reviews, and that other DUers have questioned its effectiveness and bias (for example, James Carville does get much less time than Chris Matthews). But at the very least, I think it made some points about whether a populist (or at least someone with a media image as a populist) will necessarily be effective at governing -- Laura Linney's character wrestles with whether a person whom she feels is nice and likeable ought to become president IF he may not have won fair and square.

p.s. Other things I noticed are how the voting situation was addressed (no sign of the Supreme Court!) -- and how Dobbs makes a choice which ultimately supports the will of the electorate. (This can be seen as an examination of what happened in 2000 -- in a way, Bush was subjected to the ultimate test for someone living in an democratic society, and compared to Williams and Linney, he failed.)

[Bombtrack]

16. I'm not a Robin Williams enabler

so I'll wait for cable.

[jazzjunkysue]

17. Great film! Funny, but the point is crooked politicians and rigged electio

Great film. Definitely go see it. I was high-fiving all the way through. I wanted to stand up and cheer a bunch of times.

His last word is on national TV and he says "Politicians are like diapers: They should be changed often and for the same reasons."

It was the only really direct hit to the GOP, but the Diebold company (called something else, of course) was clearly evil, and the two top men were jailed for election fraud.

It was a direct plea for people to demand two things:

1. Real representation for americans, not multinational corporations
2. Honest, open, verifyable voting machines.

This was a direct blow to election business as usual, and I think perfect, just in time to watch them steal the next election.

He really puts the possibility of election fraud front and center, where you can't dismiss the possibility. They even try to kill the whistleblower from Diebold.

Important, entertaining and timely. He goes off during a debate, and you want to kiss him!