Movie Review: Vice

The other night, my wife and I wanted to get out of the house and enjoy ourselves a bit while the kids were visiting their grandparents during the Christmas holidays. So, naturally, when given the option of leisure time and open plans, we decided to do the most romantic thing possible: watch a political satire documentary.

Seriously, though, we had seen a trailer for Vice in previous films this year and in many ways it had some intriguing things going for it. And, since I now run a blog and YouTube channel that traffics in American foreign policy history, it made sense that I keep abreast of films that might touch on the topic.

So, I bit the bullet, grabbed some M&Ms, and took some notes while I sat down to review Vice for you. Overall, I found some things to love and a few things to be aware of should you decide to see it yourself.

Synopsis

SPOILER ALERT: The film touches on history, and so does the review, so it’s a bit hard not to include some spoilers. But you probably weren’t going to see it because you didn’t already know who Dick Cheney was or is anyway. But you’ve been warned.

As you can guess from the trailer in general, the film is a bit of a biopic about one, Dick Cheney, two term Vice President to George W. Bush during the early ‘00s and, for those less aware of his earlier past, Chief of Staff for Gerald Ford and Secretary of Defense for the late George H. W. Bush. The film starts earlier in his life, during his younger adult years growing up in Wyoming, focusing on the relationship between Cheney, played by Christian Bale, and his eventual wife Lynne, played by Amy Adams. Cheney is portrayed as a stoic, monotone, drunken loser and, after his second DUI occurrence, Lynne gives him an ultimatum: make something of yourself, or I’m gone.

So, Cheney proceeds to get into politics, which he does through the Congressional intern program and quickly makes a name for himself as a loyal political lackey. It is there in the film that he first encounters the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, then Congressman from Illinois and eventual two-time Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld quickly takes a liking to Cheney and it’s during this time that Dick begins to get a feel for how Washington really works.

I was actually a little impressed by the treatment of partisanship earlier on. After hearing Rumsfeld speak during internship orientation, Cheney and another colleague have to decide which party to intern for. Cheney is so smitten with Rumsfeld after his orientation speech that he nonchalantly finds out Rumsfeld is a Republican and casually states, “Good, ‘cuz that’s what I am.” This scene and some others shortly after definitely did the film a service in that it showed the viewer how many politicians stumble into politics and party, not with firm principles like is sometimes assumed, but out of simple opportunity or leader worship.

Progressive Nods

But, as you might expect, the film does feature a number of what, to my eye, are obvious progressive nods to the audience. For instance, early on the issue of tax reform during the late ‘70s is touched on, particularly that of reforming the “estate tax” which is then marketed for public choice effect as the “death tax.” Since the estate tax only affected those inheriting two million dollars or more, it’s insinuated that this is such a horrible thing to reform.

A bit more comically, the narrator goes out of their way to highlight disdain for “right-wing think tanks” that are started due to Koch brothers and other billionaire investment, particularly highlighting the CATO Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. This is obviously meant as a smear, and I would never defend much of the horrible record on war that AEI and Heritage have historically contributed, but I thought it was a bit slanted to group the three together using such petty language.

During Cheney’s time in Congress representing Wyoming, the film also goes out of its way to highlight Cheney’s voting record. If you thought that this may be an impartial review across a broad spectrum of issues, you would be wrong. The highlight reel was sure to include Cheney’s nay vote on bills like the ban on plastic guns, the creation of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and the renewal of the Clean Water Act. Undoubtedly, the libertarian would find plenty to dislike about Cheney’s voting record and actions throughout his career. But the montage still came off to me as simplistic partisanship, not principled criticism.

Iraq War

Despite the progressive bias (which is actually brought up in a trailer stinger in a very humorous way, though not in the way we would view it) I thought that the eventual coverage of Cheney’s life and involvement during the post-9/11 period was rather well done. The criticisms leveled at Cheney here are most easily consistent with libertarian criticisms. The film did a pretty good job of showing the progressive ways in which Cheney influenced the powerful positions of President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense to achieve his desired ends. 

The story was able to cover a number of important episodes during that war, starting with the shift of focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. It did a good job of highlighting but not harping on Cheney’s connection with big business and cooption of the Iraqi connection with Al Qaeda to further oil company interests in Iraqi oil field mineral rights. It also covered the infamous UN speech given by Colin Powell wherein he admittedly gave testimony which he did not agree with and that undoubtedly swayed public and international opinion toward the eventual coalition and invasion of Iraq.

There were, however, some details that I found a bit strained. For one, the film did a decent job of showing the war fervor that existed across a wide spectrum of political pundits, news outlets, and politicians but I found that it still seemed to call out more “right wing” figures and could perhaps give the impression that it was more of a partisan decision with partisan support than actually existed at the time. I do have to give them “props”, though, for including statements by Hillary Clinton which certainly gave some needed perspective and balance.

There was also a strange connection that seemed strained to me regarding early intelligence on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi which seemed to be interested in drawing a causal link between the eventual rise of ISIS and lack of action on the part of the Bush administration. While the rise of ISIS is certainly in some ways a development and consequence of the invasion of Iraq, it was much more the result of the later sectarian cleansing of Sunni Muslims from Baghdad and the simultaneous support and attempted control of the Obama/Kerry White House. The film briefly shows the transition from Bush to Obama administrations and the implication seemed to me to be intended to give the impression that Obama fundamentally “changed things” in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. Overall, I found the ISIS connection to be a bit strained and mishandled.

Redeeming qualities

Now, despite the criticisms or problems I had with the film, I don’t want to give the impression that there was nothing to like. There were a number of positive things going for the film and a number of memorable moments that quite endeared the film to me.

For starters, I thought the casting was very well done. Christian Bale obviously attracted a lot of attention and press for the film with his body transformation but I also thought that he did a pretty impressive job mimicking some of the mannerisms of Cheney himself. Steve Carrell, who played Donald Rumsfeld, looked strikingly like the man himself; I was routinely impressed with the portrayal and Carrell’s humorous moments really helped to add some much needed comic relief.

But Sam Rockwell in particular did a fantastic job as George W. Bush. From his look to his mannerisms, the accent, and the delivery, my wife and I routinely found ourselves blown away by his performance. Also rather good was the casting for Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, actually played by Tyler Perry. This was a surprise to me and, honestly, given his past roles and recognizability, I wasn’t quite sure that it would work. But I actually ended up appreciating what Perry brought to the role, bringing home the sincerity and tragic betrayal of his own principles.

There were also a number of very unique, sometimes quirky moments in the film. One particular feature was a satirical early finish to the film, complete with fake end credits and an alternate future where Cheney never came to power. Another was a rather awkward Shakespearean scene played out by Bale and Adams. At first, the scene seemed very awkward and I wasn’t sure that it would work. But about halfway through I actually bought into it and it made for a positive yet unexpected moment.

The Bottom Line

Many of the reviews for Vice are less than stellar and some of the criticism focuses on poor dialogue, perhaps not matching up with the level of talent of the cast. I can definitely see this criticism and, as well, the quirkiness, and satire mixed with rather serious dialog and documentary-style narration left the film feeling a little haphazard, a little disjointed. But if you are generally interested in the man who is Dick Cheney, his life and his impact on American history, and can stomach and parse through some of the obvious progressive elements of the film, I think there’s something to enjoy here.

And, if not, you can always, in true George W. Bush fashion, get yourself some brisket afterwards. With the burnt ends.