Not a Big Truck

I’ve had this post percolating in my head for quite some time, so I’m excited that this blog gives me the opportunity to pour it out. I watched HBO’s new movie Recount several weeks back and thought that it was pretty good. I was surprised at how certain characters portrayed in the film came out badly, especially Warren Christopher. (He comes off particularly poorly for not wanting to fight for a recount from day one.) I guess I should clarify at this point that this post is not about me griping over the outcome in Bush v. Gore or the fact that Gore lost the election - I’ve “gotten over it,” so to speak. What I was most interested in was the odd situation of viewing Recount as an isolated history while still knowing the subsequent events that happen after that history ends. Embedded within this “but that’s not how the story ends!” mindset is an implicit argument on the part of the director (and even more so on the part of HBO).

I’m not spoiling it for you by telling you that Recount ends with Gore’s concession speech and Bush’s victory speech. The film does an excellent job of pairing the two speeches side by side. The two speeches sound nearly identical, as they share the same thesis: the 2000 election was not a crisis, but a triumph. Violence did not erupt. The government did not collapse. The dispute which did exist, though extremely tense at times, was resolved through civil processes. Both candidates were particularly effusive over the notion that the 2000 election demonstrated the strength of our electoral system: we had just survived an election that might have done in the democratic process of other countries. In the spirit of this triumph, the candidates pledge to come together in government for the good of the country.

I couldn’t help but connect this with my favorite play, Shakespeare’s Henry V, which finishes on a similar note. In that play, the ending is likewise triumphant: Henry has managed to complete the goal of the English kings who preceded him by uniting the crowns of England and France in a single person, while in the process demonstrating that he is a great and wise warrior-king. It’s at this point, though, that the chorus enters to tell us that Henry dies extremely young, whereupon the regents who rule in his son’s stead undo all that he achieved for England. To my reading, Henry V’s kingship represented a period of great (and unrealized) potential.

Which brings me back to Recount. In a similar fashion, a peaceful solution to the 2000 election represented a moment of similar great potential (and a great success for the rule of law). This moment of triumph is marred for the viewer, however, because the viewer knows what happens after the story ends. Triumph turns to tragedy: Bush becomes President, and things go downhill from there. So far as Recount is concerned, the argument is entirely implicit and relies on the viewer to make the connection between the film and what comes next, historically. HBO, however, made the argument more explicit. Immediately following Recount, at least for the showing I watched, HBO broadcast James Gandolfini’s documentary Alive Day Memories: Home from Iraq, which consisted of conversations between Gandolfini and injured Iraq war veterans. (I should mention that this documentary was fantastic as well.)

(One wonders what Gandolfini and the veterans he interviews would have to say about this.)

Here, HBO is making a connection between the end of Recount and what comes next for the viewer. It strikes me that they’re saying “Yes, we survived this Constitutional crisis, but to what end?”