Swing Vote
When asked once whether films with the same values and themes as his own could be made now (being the ’70s), Frank Capra (of “It’s a Wonderful Life” fame) said, “If they can’t, we might as well give up.” “Swing Vote” holds many of those Capra-esque values close to its’ scruffy heart, but it isn’t quite as heroic as the great director’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” was in bucking a corrupt political system.
Possibly because its’ main character is a drinking, lazy father whose 3rd act transformation feels more story-driven than character-driven. That, plus, even after the 2000 election, its’ premise of a single irregular ballot deciding a presidential election seems more than a little far-fetched (at least “Mr. Smith” felt real-to-life).
Kevin Costner plays “Bud” Johnson, a divorced dad in Texico, New Mexico whose daughter Molly (newcomer Madeline Carroll) is sick of his irresponsibility, always threatening to live with her mother. A spitfire of a kid (aren’t they always?), Molly takes her father’s first steps towards responsibility by registering him to vote. He’s worried about jury duty, but she’s inspired by her schooling- an essay she writes and presents in class gets on the nightly news on election day. But he loses his job at the egg plant he works at and gets drunk at the bar, forgetting to meet her at the polling station. But she’s determined to make a difference, so she sneaks in to set his ballot, but chance conspires before she can seal the deal electorally. When Bud’s ballot is the one discovered to be faulty by an enterprising and ambitious local reporter (Paulette Patton), the whole world descends on Texico for the 10-day time frame before Bud can re-vote, including the incumbent Republican President Boone (Kelsey Grammer) and Democratic challenger Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper) and their campaigns (the managers of which, slyly poked by Stanley Tucci as Boone’s CM and Nathan Lane as Greenleaf’s), faced with the challenge of courting one vote.
Ethical questions are at the heart of “Swing Vote.” How far will a candidate go to court a single vote…even if it means going against their beliefs? Will a journalist looking for exposure sell their morals for a story? Should Bud and Molly tell the truth, even if it means Molly being taken away from him? All these questions circle around the central story of the film, which is Bud’s transformation from a self-serving man to a man of the people. But although Costner is more than capable than playing your typical underdog Capra hero (see “JFK”), and does a good job here, writers Jason Richman and Joshua Michael Stern (the latter of whom is making his directorial debut) stack the deck against the character by making him completely clueless about something dearly important to his daughter (Carroll is a true find in a terrific and touching performance that’s the true heart of the movie) and self-centered. And while he obviously comes around, it comes too late into the film to be truly inspiring, to say nothing of feeling- as previously mentioned- more plot-driven than character-driven. The film is a smart one and ends just right, and the actors all bring their best, but even if Bud is representative of most of Americans when it comes to politics, why did Stern feel the need to make him completely clueless about matters, even before he didn’t care?
