MovieChat Forums > Mitt (2014) Discussion > A Positive Portrayal of Romney (for bett...

A Positive Portrayal of Romney (for better or for worse)

posted 10 years ago by Jalapeno_Fro
7 replies | jump to latest

I watched this movie because I love politics. I'm especially a fan of the documentary 'War Room' about Clinton's 1992 campaign. It gave a behind the scenes look at the running of a presidential campaign- warts and all. Getting that much access was a first and 'War Room' is still considered one of the best political documentaries out there. Interestingly, Bill Clinton was not the star of the film. It was really about the advisers and political operation that are the staple of every modern presidential campaign.

The film 'Mitt' is the total opposite of 'War Room'. This is not so much a political documentary as it is a video diary of his family meetings while running for President in 2008 and 2012. It offers a glimpse into moments of the Romney family's life, which can at times be interesting and almost endearing as it tries to humanize the man behind the pressed suit and tie, but it offers little insight into the campaign itself. So if you are a political junkie hoping to see what it's like to be a part of one of the biggest high-wire acts in all of politics, you might be disappointed.

However, 'Mitt' is interesting for the fact that it clearly shows Romney how he would like to be remembered. He wants to be viewed as a kind, smart, successful family man. And maybe that's what he's really like, but because the film shows him in such a positive light, it's not hard to imagine that Romney and his family had final edit or that the filmmaker became a friend over the course of filming. Whether or not that's a bad thing is up to you. If you voted for Romney in 2012, you might come away seeing a good family man who should have shown more of his personality on the campaign- he might have won if he had. If you voted for Obama, you might see a different side of the man and leave the experience with some sympathy for him. Nonetheless, this film also serves to settle some scores and presents Romney's version of history for historians, much like a memoir would.

Mitt Romney seems to be a man from a different era. A wealthy, educated, polite and well-dressed businessman who says "heck" and "gosh" around his family. He'd fit right into a black and white movie from the 40's or a 50's sitcom. What also comes across is a man who is analytical, fastidiousness and risk averse. The way he speaks, the decisions he made in the campaign and even the way he walks all suggest a man who is trying very hard to do things correctly and efficiently. This inability to let himself loose and take big risks is what many political reporters and observers believe hurt his campaign. This film is perhaps guilty of the same problem- it is too safe and controlled and it offers few real insights into the man or his campaign, instead preferring to show highlights of him when he's with his family. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just isn't particularly revealing or interesting as a political documentary. In the end, this is likely a film that Mitt Romney would be happy to have share a name with him.

6.5/10

"Wish not so much to live long as to live well." -Ben Franklin

[–] jecorbin-1 10 years ago

Story held my interest –Most certainly we are seeing the family authorized version, but even without warts it was a journey I’m glad I took. The election day footage was most intriguing to me. First we see Ann & Mitt in a holding room as he comments on the voter turn-out. “Big long lines. Interesting” Later, Paul Ryan boards the jet. Someone from the team quickly leans in to, I assume, give him a heads up that it’s a live camera/hot mic moment. Ryan comments on voter turn-out as well. “It was, um, it was different than my usual voting”. Now granted, the comments are vague enough to be argued either way, but it left me wondering if they meant the “wrong kind” of people were in line. Being from Florida I got to experience firsthand our GOP methods to make those lines as long & painful as possible – It would have been interesting to see if Mitt empathized with the voters standing in the extreme heat for hours to exercise their right, or if he was miffed by the “Stay in Line” movement of the day. Regardless of who you voted for, the pain was the same in those precincts.

[–] DesterWallaboo 10 years ago

I heard a piece from Whiteley and there is no "family authorized version". In fact, he was specifically told that he could shoot whatever he wanted and edit any way he wished. But the only constraint the family gave him was that he couldn't release the film until a) once Romney was out of office (if elected) or b) after the election was over and he lost. That was the only caveat they required when agreeing to be filmed.

[–] sfdyoung-1 10 years ago

"...it is too safe and controlled and it offers few real insights into the man or his campaign..."

I suspect it offers many, many insights into both the man and his campaign. "Safe and controlled" is an apt description of both Mitt Romney and the campaign he put together. Not "effective," not "honest," but "safe and controlled."

I think Mitt is exactly the person we see in this movie - stiff, remote, withdrawn, unexpressive, unable to relate, out of touch - and that his campaigns were poorly run. They were effective representations of the man, but they weren't effective campaigns to get that man elected.

"I am proud to introduce to you the next President of the United States, Mitt Romney!" Oops.

[–] Jalapeno_Fro 10 years ago

Agreed- I think this is the real Mitt. While he may be stiff, remote, unable to relate in this movie, it was much worse during the campaign. So this Mitt is more likable than the campaign Mitt, but that's probably not saying much.

"Wish not so much to live long as to live well." -Ben Franklin

[–] mickeeteeze 10 years ago

Yea, he's out of touch and stiff. But I did see an honest man who is certainly a real family orientated guy. His politics clash with mine, largely, but I'm sure he's easy to get along with on a friendly level. There may be some arrogance behind the religious 'righteousness', but it takes all kinds, and I don't have a major issue with that.

He was honest to himself and his family and handlers from what I could tell. He recognized a national election would force him to be ambiguous on his positions, yet in attack mode when discussing others 'ambiguous positions'. He recognized 'to the winners go the spoils', and losing an election would always open up his 'ambiguous positions' to ridicule.

He accepted the risks at face value, and did what he believed in.

I didn't vote for him. That said, he brought a precursor to the 'ACA' to his home state of Massachusetts (judge a man by his actions, not words). He is hardly a blind ideologue, He just portrayed one to win an election, which they all do (mostly).

Certainly a lot better than the neocon wing who ruled the GOP (and many Dems) over the last 15-20 years.

[–] bbfrmrp 10 years ago

It was an interesting movie. He seemed like a very nice man. I hated his politics. I always hoped his remarks in Florida were just to raise money from some rich bigots. But I think he really thinks most people in America are just takers.

[–] random_guy2 9 years ago

47% is not "most", but that comment is one of those artifacts that seems to arise in every major political race -- a single line taken out of context and milked by the media and opposition. To me, nothing about what he said seemed even slightly controversial -- about half of the country does not pay taxes, and that group votes heavily Democratic. That seems pretty straightforward. But suddenly everyone had to pretend to be shocked and offended? I always found that confusing.