Man of the Year

Man of the Year is the third film that Robin Williams and director Barry Levinson have worked on together. Their first—made nearly 20 years ago—was Good Morning, Vietnam, one of the first and most successful showcases for Williams' brand of improvisational humor, and in its own way a thoughtful and intelligent study of the relationship between comedy and the grim seriousness of world events. Their second was the wacky, noisy, charming, alarming, and ultimately disappointing Toys. In terms of quality or entertainment value, their newest collaboration falls somewhere between the first two; it is not as potentially off-putting as Toys, but it also falls short of the political or dramatic resonance of their first joint effort.

The new film's premise is certainly timely enough. In a time when many people turn to variety shows and comedians like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher for their "news," and when celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger can launch successful political campaigns on talk shows hosted by the likes of Jay Leno, this film asks what might happen if one of these televised funnymen—in this case, Robin Williams, or at least a character played by him named Tom Dobbs—were to run for office himself.

Comedian-turned-candidate Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) speaks to a star-struck public

What's more, the film is smart enough to recognize that Dobbs would probably not win, no matter how large his fan base is or how many names appeared on an Internet petition supporting his candidacy; think of televangelist Pat Robertson's brief run for the presidency in 1988, or of Snakes on a Plane, which somehow failed to turn months and months of grassroots online hype into actual ticket sales.

The thing is, while Dobbs does not, in fact, win a majority of the actual votes, he does "win" the election, due to a glitch in the computers that count the votes. And he is popular enough that no one really questions whether this dark horse really did win the race. Only a few people know about the error—namely Eleanor Green (Laura Linney, excellent as ever), an employee at the firm that designed the machines, and her bosses, who go to extreme lengths to shut her up, not because they care who runs the country but because her whistle-blowing could hurt their rising profits. (One of these bosses is a lawyer played by an appropriately slick Jeff Goldblum, who overwhelms Eleanor with a torrent of words, before trying other tactics.)

Dobbs and his manager Jack Menken (Christopher Walken) play a game of chess

Thus the film sets in motion a plot that is more thriller than comedy, and thus the film squanders some of the opportunities it has to do something interesting with its central gimmick. Dobbs and his campaign are all but forgotten as scenes of Eleanor pacing about her living room, or freaking out at the company's cafeteria, drag on long enough to make you wonder what happened to the other characters. Eventually Eleanor decides the only person who will believe her story about the computer glitch is Dobbs himself, so she worms her way into his inner circle—with surprising ease—and then, before she can spill the beans, she and Dobbs start falling in love.

For a political satire, Man of the Year is surprisingly light on political content. Does Dobbs have a vice-presidential candidate? Apparently he does, because someone asks him what his veep-in-waiting thought about something, but we never meet the guy. And what is the reaction to Dobbs's candidacy on the world stage? The film never tells us, which is a startling omission, given how much of the president's job involves dealing with other nations, and given how central world affairs are to election campaigns in real life. (Remember how, in 2000, people complained that George W. Bush had never left Texas and didn't know his world leaders?)

Voting analyst Eleanor Green (Laura Linney) has some insider information for Dobbs

There are also some puzzling paradoxes, like the way Dobbs rails against both the Republicans and Democrats for being too "partisan," yet the reason people rally behind Dobbs is because he's the only one who says anything "different" from the two major parties. (At the televised debate, one of the two big-party candidates expresses his full agreement with the other big-party candidate, and is never seen disagreeing with him in any substantial way.) There may be ways to explain this seeming contradiction, but the film barely seems to even notice it.

And for a comedy, Man of the Year is surprisingly light on humor. Williams gets a few nice lines in there, but some of his jokes seem to be rehashed from his stand-up routines, and a couple of his quips are so familiar and shopworn, you begin to wonder if it is possible to say that someone has plagiarized the public domain. Ever heard the one which questions "Intelligent Design" by looking at the reproductive system and asking what kind of engineer would put a sewage line through a recreational area? For all I know, maybe Williams is the guy who coined that line, but either way, it's been around so long now that he really needs newer material.

Early on in his campaign, Dobbs keeps the funny stuff to private meetings with his campaign team, while keeping his political speeches serious. His manager (Christopher Walken) and his chief writer (an amusing Lewis Black) insist that he go back to being funny, because that's what the audiences who come to hear him expect. Man of the Year commits the same basic error. It will draw audiences who want to see topical humor, and it will bog them down in a typical thriller, before capping things off with a serious, earnest, yet cautious political statement.

Talk About It

1. What place is there for humor in politics? What about in churches, or schools, or other institutional settings? What place should there be for propriety? Is it good or bad when Tom Dobbs disrupts the format of the presidential debate? Why
2. Should candidates be open about morally questionable character traits (past drug use, sexually active single life), as Tom Dobbs is? Is it important to avoid any appearance of wrongdoing? Any appearance of hypocrisy? Both
3. Why do people listen to Tom Dobbs? In terms of his politics, how is he different from the existing politicians? How is he similar?

The Family Corner

Man of the Year is rated PG-13 for language including some crude sexual references, drug related material (someone is forcibly injected with drugs), and brief violence (an ambush, a broken nose, an attempt on someone's life). Dobbs also cracks jokes about the Pope, Intelligent Design, same-sex marriage and other topics.

Photos © Copyright Universal Pictures

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

What Other Critics Are Saying

Director Barry Levinson made a memorable movie with Robin Williams once before—1987's Good Morning Vietnam was an entertaining, compelling character study, and it gave Williams what may be his greatest role, the hilarious wartime radio DJ Adrian Cronauer. Later, with 1997's Wag the Dog, Levinson showed that he could deliver a clever, funny, and observant political comedy.

But according to critics, Man of the Year, in which Levinson directs Williams again, falls far short of the marks set by those films.

It might be fun to imagine that a wisecracking comedian could run for President and unravel the tangled mess in Washington. But it will take a different team of imaginations to make it into a movie worth seeing.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) writes, "Levinson … hasn't decided what film he wanted to make: part Capraesque fantasy; part polemic against the corporatization of politics; part satire about the blurring of entertainment and news; part romance. The jokes are funny, but the treatment of politics is oversimplified."

Bob Hoose (Plugged In) muses, "The truth of the matter is that some politicians are corrupt. Others aren't. But Man of the Year wants you to walk out of the theater brooding that nothing works at all." He concludes that the film is "torpedoed" by "brazenly unabashed 'humor' related to drug use, pornography, prostitution, masturbation, gay marriage, bestiality and oral sex."

"Despite a boatload of flaws, I still have to hand it to Williams and Linney," writes Christa Banister (Crosswalk). "I'm not sure anyone else could've fared as well with such silly, unconvincing material. But unfortunately for those hoping for a flick that'll lead to some provocative post-movie conversation, you'll have to look elsewhere."

Mainstream critics are quick to cast their "no" votes.