Books and Arts

Recount Revisited (Part 1)

By and

Recount, a dramatized take on the controversial denouement of the 2000 election, premieres on HBO Sunday at 8 p.m. TNR’s
Jonathan Chait, who covered the Florida battle eight years ago and is
still seething about it, discusses the film with its director, Jay
Roach (of Austin Powers and Meet the Parents fame), and its screenwriter, Danny Strong.

Chait begins the conversation below. Click here for Roach and Strong’s responses.

 

Dear Jay and Danny,

It's a triumph. Congratulations. Watching Recount was one of
the most powerful film-viewing experiences I can ever remember. Of
course, I’m biased, because I’m one of the people who never let go of
the events it depicts. Inevitably, I was going to be either furious or
gratified with whoever made the first movie about it. I was gratified.

The Florida recount was one of the most important political episodes
in American history. Let me try to make my historical argument as
quickly and un-boringly as I can. American politics used to have an
establishment, filled with elites who believed in bipartisanship and
consensus, and who held together the center in American politics.
Conservatives spent decades discrediting and circumventing that
establishment. But the establishment remained in place, and it could
bring to heel even so popular a figure as Ronald Reagan. The recount
was the moment when the Republican Party fully realized that, beneath
the still-imposing edifice, the old institutions had rotted away and
could be brought down with a few swift blows.

Yet the Democrats still believed in the power of the establishment and its ideals. This is a major theme of Recount. Al Gore and his lieutenants agonized about their reputation, their duty, and winning the approval of The New York Times,
while Republicans saw the episode as a pure street fight. The
Republicans were teeming with rage and paranoia, well-captured in the
movie by the “Brooks Brothers Riot” and the bitter commentaries of GOP
recount lawyer Ben Ginsburg. This was the political culture of the
moment. Liberal editorial pages studiously urged both sides to fight
fair, while conservative organs like the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard printed deranged conspiracy theories and urged Bush to do whatever it took to win.

After the recount ended, there was intense pressure to look away
from what had happened, a pressure that grew after September 11. And so
this unbelievably consequential event virtually disappeared from the
public discourse. I suspect that the cratering of the Bush presidency
is what allowed this movie to be made. Bush’s failure as a president is
an irony that hangs over the whole film, giving even mundane events
black humor.

The humorous tone of the movie is one of the most interesting
choices, and I’d love to hear both of your takes on it. The events it
depicts--while presented straightforwardly and
non-propagandistically--are a bloody outrage, and yet the tone and feel
of the film is extremely light. I love the end result--hypocrisy,
irrationality, and moral callousness are often best captured by humor.
But I’m curious what drove this not-obvious decision--is the episode
still so touchy that HBO decided it had to be approached in a funny way
to make it palatable? In any case, I think it actually drives home the
outrage more effectively than it would if it was an earnest, Bill
Moyers-style “Shame of the Blah Blah Blah” documentary.

If I haven’t given you enough to chew on, let me toss out some more
questions: How is it that a comedic director took on this project? Was
there a calculation that the subject was still too delicate to approach
with a heavy touch? In any case, it’s an utterly devastating indictment
of Katherine Harris, the Bush recount team, and the Supreme Court--but
all the more persuasive because it is presented as a series of wry
observations.

(Speaking of Katherine Harris, Laura Dern’s impression is fantastic.
There was one scene where she walked to the podium and I thought I was
looking at footage of Harris. There must be something distinctive about
the way Harris carries herself that Dern was able to capture, because
the similarity was spooky.)

What made you two decide to take on this project? What research did you
conduct? What was the reaction at HBO? What reaction have you gotten
from Republicans?

Also, I suppose that for the sake of the appearance of balance, I
should make one criticism of the movie, so here goes. How did you not
include the scene where John Bolton burst into a Tallahassee library
and announced, "I’m with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the
count!”? That always struck me as the most cinematic moment of the
whole episode.

Best,

Jonathan

Click here for responses from Recount director Jay Roach and screenwriter Danny Strong.

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic. Jay Roach is a director and producer whose films include Recount, the Austin Powers series and Meet the Parents. Danny Strong is a writer and actor who wrote the screenplay for Recount.

 

Read Jonathan Chait's original coverage of the Florida recount:"Fall Guy" (11.20.00)"Count Down" (11.26.01)"Losing It" (12.11.00)"Not Equal" (12.25.00)

By Jonathan Chait, Jay Roach, and Danny Strong

Loading Related Articles...

More articles tagged as

Article Tools
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 13 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.