Head of State (2003)

Head of State

Network Premiere

Argh! Chris Rock is so funny! Why did he have to do this? I know why, but still. If you saw Rock's brief segment in Bowling for Columbine, if not his regular stand-up, you know he's an affable, positive man who calls the injustices against the people as he sees them. Hoping for that, I went to see Head of State, and suffered through this randomized mish mosh of good intentions, inconsistent writing, farcical set-ups (with real perils), and no solutions. And a rap Greek chorus that imparts no information?

Rock's character Mays Gilliam is an Alderman in a D.C. 'hood who, through a series of wacky circumstances, is tapped to run (as the defacto loser) for president. The idea is he will set "the party" (never specified but quite clear) up for a pity win next election. Fine, it's a great idea, reminiscent of the "if only" everyman appeal of Dave and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Gilliam is idealistic and ethical and everything that makes a "bad" politician, and he speaks his mind (of course); it was this optimism I went to see. Plus of course, Rock is great in the monologue/standup format, perfect for speeches.

So Rock gets opportunities to be funny when he's grandstanding. Opportunities, but not occurrences. Rock has a lot to say that many people agree with and which isn't being said loudly enough lately. He's got good points to make, and makes them in an accessible manner (see any preview for an example). For this, I applaud the effort of making the film. Sadly, star/director/writer/producer Rock lost touch with narrative and focus and just went in no direction. Decrying injustice, even with great delivery, does not a funny movie make. One can address the injustice in a funny way (a la Michael Moore's on-the-street stunts on The Awful Truth and TV Nation) or one can dress down the opposition in a funny way (like Animal House/Old School collegiates getting the Dean back). Gilliam does neither. He points out the problems, offers no solutions, so we're mad and we're riled and we'reŠstill mad and riled. And not laughing.

Of course Gilliam's opponent (running with the "other party") naturally will be played out as shallow and insane, so Gilliam makes him look bad; but not too much, because that would be sinking to "their" level and also showing disrespect. The "other party" also cannot offer solutions when Gilliam does not, or they will look sane. So everyone loses. "Things suck!" (Gilliam's audience cheers) "Yes, well we will make sure that the sucking does not continue to the future!" (Other half of audience cheers) What just happened? It's not political satire, and it's also, unfortunately, not very funny.

Add in a huge steaming heap of randomness (with an agonizing emphasis on slapping) and the painfully unfunny Bernie Mac as Rock's running made, and you just get a frustrating mess. And what's with all the slapping? It was weird and off-putting. Yes, it's good to get awareness out, and it's great to target a demographic that might not have been inclined to see Bowling for Columbine - but at what cost? I am sure Mac and Rock would do a great routine together, given the opportunity, but they just seemed to shoot themselves in the foot for a solid hour. We care about Gilliam because he cares about what's important; but that is not enough. When Rock gets to talk his talk, he's entertaining, but because it's ostensibly a comedy movie first, he can't get too serious. Dave could get serious because the comedy was sustained by the mistaken identity and fish-out-of-water plot lines. Rock's not a fish out of water; he's hosing down the entire city. So we're left with a big ol' mess. That ain't right! (That ain't right!)

Believe me, it made me really sad that the end result was so unsatisfying. It also made me mad that the trend of extreme randomness and craziness is supposed to be enough to make us laugh, especially after teasing us with thoughts of higher social issues. I am forced to quote my new idol, Kevin Murphy, on describing the visceral feeling of such a film: The audience is "made uneasy by the furtive and spastic nature of the third act, as if the film has become unstable and might come out in the audience, grab someone, and home him hostage with a kitchen knife." I am serious, it really does feel that way when you see something so ineptly created with such low standards of care.

I like a silly comedy as well as a brainy comedy, but it needs an arc and it needs to not just take a bag of gags and hurl them willy nilly. Take that, and tart it up with social commentary, and just makes the stupid stuff stupider. The final insult was showing us a montage of clips from this movie, and it wasn't even the credits yet. I am sorry to not recommend this film, except on HBO.

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ These reviews (c) 2003 Karina Montgomery. Please feel free to forward but just credit the reviewer in the text. Thanks. reviews@cinerina.com Check out previous reviews at: http://www.cinerina.com http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com - the Online Film Critics Society http://www.hsbr.net/reviews/karina/listing.hsbr - Hollywood Stock Exchange Brokerage Resource http://www.mediamotions.com for 1999 releases

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 34566
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 1125379
X-RT-TitleID: 1121002
X-RT-SourceID: 755
X-RT-AuthorID: 3661
X-RT-RatingText: 1/5