Thoughts on Tanner '88.
I just finished watching it. (For those who don't know, this is the miniseries by Robert Altman and Garry Trudeau (of Doonesbury) about a fictional Democratic candidate for president, a former Michigan congressman named Jack Tanner, running in the actual 1988 primary.)
The first four episodes -- the New Hampshire primary episode with Farmer Bob, the Nashville campaign stops ("I am Al Gore's worst nightmare") and the DC episode leading up to Tanner accidentally getting himself arrested at the anti-apartheid rally -- are just sublime political satire. Satire is always best when it's (a) gentle and (b) subtle. And the beauty of Tanner -- who strikes me as exactly what you'd get if you crossed John Kerry and Gary Hart -- in the early episodes is that he's the perfect embodiment of what it is (or maybe what it was in 1988) to be a middle-aged, liberally-educated, left-leaning baby-boomer white man, in a country in which the majority of middle-aged baby-boomer white men are neither liberally-educated nor left leaning -- yearning for some vague notion of "leadership". Tanner is totally "for real" so far as that goes. He's obviously a very honest man who loves and is loved back by his daughter. His liberal irony, his distaste for the absurdity and artifice of campaigning all seems genuine enough.
But despite all that, it's never clear whether or not he really does stand for anything other than his generation's yearning for leadership and representation. He has no notable positions; he never says anything actually substantive, even in the famous impromptu through-the-coffee-table speech that launches his campaign. And of course he's as totally superfulous to the primary as the fact that he's fictional would suggest. The last thing the '88 primary needed was another nontraditionally sexually active atari boomer. And therein lies the contradiction and the sublimity of the whole enterprise. The directors clearly love politics and don't reflexively sneer at politicians. But what exactly makes a great politician? What makes somebody authentic? And is authenticity in the abstract enough? A made-on-the-fly, half-improvised miniseries that could raise these questions (which, by the way, Tanner answers in the final 2004 "retrospective intro" clip) so completely, so candidly is... well, two hours in I'm floored.
Then, BANG, the whole gist of the series changes as Tanner changes in the fifth and sixth episodes from enigma to liberal dream candidate, decrying the national obsession with communism and proposing to decriminalize drug use. The transition is clunky. The Bruce Babbitt and Hollywood vote registration drive sequences are hammy and predictable*. The debate episode is sloppily imposed and strains crediblity too far. Tanner looks dangerously like he's going to stop being a muse for what the Dems really are and become a liberal white knight for viewers to moan "if only Democrats were like this!" over. But then, just as I was ready to write off the series, things massively pick up again. Episode 8, the Detroit projects episode, in which the community members shoot down Tanner's drug legalization ideas and express their frustration and partisanship, is one of the most powerful bits of socio-political commentary I've ever seen. And the scene when Tanner mounts the under-construction stage while his daughter watches and famous Democratic speeches play at the Atlanta convention is really memorable. As is the delegate fight with "Billy" running the boiler room. (Readers who don't have any idea what I'm talking about should really just go rent it.)
Damn HBO for cancelling the series before Jack could decide whether to run as an independent against Dukakis and Bush. The campaign and media cast members are wonderful -- each one a riff on a stereotype that turns the stereotype inside out. Plus, it's so great to see a documentary about politics that is neither an American President-style fantasy nor a Wag-the-Dog style anti-political statement. The makers of Tanner '88 clearly love the process, the mess, the contradictions of liberal party politics. At it's best, that's what makes Tanner '88 so great.
* Self indulgent note: part of the fun of Tanner '88 and reading old political books is trying to figure out who I would have supported in previous primaries had I been alive, old enough, or into politics at the time. My guesses: in '72, Muskie. In '76, Udall. In '80, Carter. In '84, Hart. In '88, either Babbitt or Dukakis, but I'm not sure which. In '92, Tsongas. In 2000, Gore. In 2004, Dean until his pre-Iowa implosion (not the scream speech; before that) then Kerry. I make no chest-pounding claims as to my ability to pick winners, but clearly I got a thing for moderates.
The first four episodes -- the New Hampshire primary episode with Farmer Bob, the Nashville campaign stops ("I am Al Gore's worst nightmare") and the DC episode leading up to Tanner accidentally getting himself arrested at the anti-apartheid rally -- are just sublime political satire. Satire is always best when it's (a) gentle and (b) subtle. And the beauty of Tanner -- who strikes me as exactly what you'd get if you crossed John Kerry and Gary Hart -- in the early episodes is that he's the perfect embodiment of what it is (or maybe what it was in 1988) to be a middle-aged, liberally-educated, left-leaning baby-boomer white man, in a country in which the majority of middle-aged baby-boomer white men are neither liberally-educated nor left leaning -- yearning for some vague notion of "leadership". Tanner is totally "for real" so far as that goes. He's obviously a very honest man who loves and is loved back by his daughter. His liberal irony, his distaste for the absurdity and artifice of campaigning all seems genuine enough.
But despite all that, it's never clear whether or not he really does stand for anything other than his generation's yearning for leadership and representation. He has no notable positions; he never says anything actually substantive, even in the famous impromptu through-the-coffee-table speech that launches his campaign. And of course he's as totally superfulous to the primary as the fact that he's fictional would suggest. The last thing the '88 primary needed was another nontraditionally sexually active atari boomer. And therein lies the contradiction and the sublimity of the whole enterprise. The directors clearly love politics and don't reflexively sneer at politicians. But what exactly makes a great politician? What makes somebody authentic? And is authenticity in the abstract enough? A made-on-the-fly, half-improvised miniseries that could raise these questions (which, by the way, Tanner answers in the final 2004 "retrospective intro" clip) so completely, so candidly is... well, two hours in I'm floored.
Then, BANG, the whole gist of the series changes as Tanner changes in the fifth and sixth episodes from enigma to liberal dream candidate, decrying the national obsession with communism and proposing to decriminalize drug use. The transition is clunky. The Bruce Babbitt and Hollywood vote registration drive sequences are hammy and predictable*. The debate episode is sloppily imposed and strains crediblity too far. Tanner looks dangerously like he's going to stop being a muse for what the Dems really are and become a liberal white knight for viewers to moan "if only Democrats were like this!" over. But then, just as I was ready to write off the series, things massively pick up again. Episode 8, the Detroit projects episode, in which the community members shoot down Tanner's drug legalization ideas and express their frustration and partisanship, is one of the most powerful bits of socio-political commentary I've ever seen. And the scene when Tanner mounts the under-construction stage while his daughter watches and famous Democratic speeches play at the Atlanta convention is really memorable. As is the delegate fight with "Billy" running the boiler room. (Readers who don't have any idea what I'm talking about should really just go rent it.)
Damn HBO for cancelling the series before Jack could decide whether to run as an independent against Dukakis and Bush. The campaign and media cast members are wonderful -- each one a riff on a stereotype that turns the stereotype inside out. Plus, it's so great to see a documentary about politics that is neither an American President-style fantasy nor a Wag-the-Dog style anti-political statement. The makers of Tanner '88 clearly love the process, the mess, the contradictions of liberal party politics. At it's best, that's what makes Tanner '88 so great.
* Self indulgent note: part of the fun of Tanner '88 and reading old political books is trying to figure out who I would have supported in previous primaries had I been alive, old enough, or into politics at the time. My guesses: in '72, Muskie. In '76, Udall. In '80, Carter. In '84, Hart. In '88, either Babbitt or Dukakis, but I'm not sure which. In '92, Tsongas. In 2000, Gore. In 2004, Dean until his pre-Iowa implosion (not the scream speech; before that) then Kerry. I make no chest-pounding claims as to my ability to pick winners, but clearly I got a thing for moderates.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home