The Hunting of the President (2004)

Cynthia Fuchs

'There was a sense among a certain social set in Washington that Clinton was not their kind of person.'"

The Hunting of the President

Director: Harry Thomason
Cast: Morgan Freeman (narrator), Paul Begala, David Brock, Jeffrey Toobin, James Carville, Susan McDougal, Joe Conason, Howard Kurtz
MPAA rating: Unrated
Studio: Fox
Display Artist: Nickolas Perry, Harry Thomason
First date: 2004
US DVD Release Date: 2004-09-28
For a brief time, official Washington went mad, it went crazy.
-- Paul Begala, The Hunting of the President

The central insight of the framers of the Constitution was that a democracy is not just about majority rule, but about minority rights. It's about striking the balance between empowering the government to do what people need to do for themselves together while absolutely preventing the abuse of power chronicled in this film.
-- Bill Clinton, "Remarks after Screening of The Hunting of the President"

"There was a sense among a certain social set in Washington that Clinton was not their kind of person." Sidney Blumenthal's observation at the start of The Hunting of the President now seems wry understatement. Given recent (and indeed, current) U.S. media reports and reconstructions -- rife with anti-Bill Clinton sentiment -- it's abundantly clear that the man from Hope rubbed many the wrong way. But if political and even personal antagonisms are familiar in U.S. history and media imagery, the result of this particular sentiment was profound and even tragic, in the sense that so much time, energy, and focus (as well as money) was committed to taking down a President, when so much else might have been achieved.

Whatever you might think about Clinton's presidency or personal business, Nickolas Perry and Harry Thomason's documentary eventually makes a broader case concerning media's relationship to "government," and the corruption of "social sets" as these informed political, legal, and corporate/media decisions. In other words, the film ends up looking at issues that extend beyond the Clintons' run-in with the right, focused on the infamous $80-million investigations and ending with the impeachment. The fact that Thomason was one of Clinton's most effective image-shapers only makes sense, as the film repolishes that image, by arguing that its tarnishing was brought on by other, equally adept, and explicitly hostile image-makers run amok.

Based on a book by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons (which is subtitled "The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton"), The Hunting of the President features both standard documentary devices (talking heads, book-lined offices, shots of documents and famous building exteriors), and others that are increasingly familiar (ironic "chapter" titles to underline arguments ["Liberal Establishment," "The Red Dress"], and vintage movie footage serving as comic commentary on the narration, read soberly by Morgan Freeman). This alternating structure positions Hunting somewhere between old-school, investigatory documentary and trendier "contentious" entertainment. As such, it will be convincing or annoying, depending on how you stand going in.

The talking heads include figures once identified by mainstream press (as noted in the film) as being "in the tank" with Clinton: journalists (Howard Kurtz, Jeffrey Toobin, David Brock, and Jonathan Alter), former Clinton aides (Paul Begala, James Carville) and Arkansas associates (Susan McDougall, Arkansas Times editor-in-chief Max Brantley), all tending either to detail their part in the events or, more often, their sheer horror as it all turned so extreme. No Clinton opponents have a say, except by way of press conference footage (Paula Jones) or stock images (Ken Starr smiling at the camera as he walks to his office). But then, the film is arguing that these folks all had their say during the "hunting" process, and that "history" will show (and in some cases, has already indicated) the folly of their obsessive pursuit of this man who was "not their kind of person."

Indeed, Hunting is a function of the much-discussed antipathies that form today's U.S. political "system." As in previous anti-Republican documentaries -- Unprecedented, Bush's Brain, Outfoxed, Uncovered, Fahrenheit 9/11 -- the premise is that media and politics are increasingly and problematically intertwined. If you assume the right "hated" Clinton (that is, it's old news), Hunting's more immediate argument concerns the fallout from the anti-Clinton campaigns (occasionally identified as a "vast conspiracy," that is, of an organizational piece) that currently colors the U.S. political process. As media companies are more often explicitly in bed with political apparatuses, and distinctions among corporate, political, and military institutions seem quaint and faded memories.

This is not to sat that there was ever a moment when the press was wholly separate from the governmental machinery it on which it "reports." It is to say that their conniving and collaborating are increasingly visible and unapologetic. While a movie like Alexandra Pelosi's Journeys with George (2003) might be considered a relatively subtle, less incensed version of this narrative, Hunting underlines and boldfaces the point, with an overstated soundtrack and stock footage.

Whitewater victim Susan McDougal's interview -- though ending in painful tears and her request that the camera operator "Turn it off" -- brings into focus the movie's outrage. Having served an 18-month prison term for refusing to provide prosecutors with the anti-Clinton testimony they wanted, she appears the film's most invested and yet most convincing subject. As she describes it, Starr's office connived to get her husband Jim, Clinton's former financial advisor in Arkansas, to turn on the President. Her own decision not to testify, and her current work with women inmates, makes her seem at once hopeful, honest, and courageous. Among the onslaught of dishonesty sullies the U.S. political landscape, McDougal looks suddenly monumental.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.