I believe most people experienced a situation when a movie confirmed something they already knew. "Yes, that's what I've been talking all the time!" But, retrospectively, it still isn't something very new. We've seen it very long ago, Kirk Douglas opened our eyes is "Ace in the Hole", Cary Grant made us laugh even before in "His girl Friday", Walter Matthau & Jack Lemmon repeated it decades later in "The Front Page". But for most of us the lesson hasn't been learned. We had to be punched in our heads by washing our brains by soap operas and soap news. We had to see billions of people losing attitudes (if ever had any) and accepting as truth whatever the Holy Box in living-room said the truth was. We had to see wars starting and finishing when the Holy Box told its believers to go to the war or to press the government to stop it. We had to see president elections (or nominations) lost because some camera happened to be on a wrong or (right?) place. We had to see politicians', actors', musicians', army officers' careers end because their words were taken from the interviews just to sound sensational (oh, yes, the law gave them a chance to correct, but if anybody read it later, nobody believed it). We had to see instant stars (musicians, politicians...) raise from TV shows becoming as successful as the TV marketing wanted them to be, and lasting as long as TV wanted. One wrong sentence said, one wrong person talking to, one wrong place to spend a night at, one drink to much, there's always a camera to record it and make it a line on the bottom of a page or a top sensation, depending on the ranking of the person caught. Throughout the history power changed its owner: magicians, kings, priests, generals... Now it's definitely press (mostly TV) holding it. Even bigger power than ever: they don't only control the present, they change history and make future (read Orwell). And as they control the informations, they can prevent any different opinions to be publicly spoken (how long will these web forums exist?). Even if you're one of them, you'll be stopped (by the way, would Hoffmann in the last scene shout so loudly if he wasn't pushed out of the system?)
Few decades ago Gavras was a socialist regimes pet. His movies were praised and repeatedly shown in cinemas and on TV. His criticism was usually against rightists and USA, so it was politically correct to watch his movies, which always had wide open message. In this movie a message is here, but almost eaten by two fantastic actors in one of their best roles. Travolta looks only few I.Q.s over Forrest Gump? Yes, if not so, would he take a bag of dynamite without a plan? Hoffmann looks sleepy and slow? Yes, his career is in a dead end street on the start, and he is physically exhausted at the end (Travolta takes pills, and Hoffmann is awaken all the time trying to control people and events as he is used to being a reporter - how should he look like?). But it's Alda who saves the movie not to become a two actors competition (like The Sleuth - but that magnificent movie was meant to be a actors-movie, and Mad City is supposed to be a message-movie).
Now we have someone to hate. But I still feel uncomfortable: it looks like we have to like the man who walks with gun and explosives. Is he a good guy for today standards? Or a relict from Gavras' early days (the lefts he glorified were also the Red brigades and R.A.F.)? Or, maybe Gavras, leaving Europe to make Hollywood movies, accepted US "free arms for everybody" standards? Any of that correct, he lost a credibility to judge anyone (even TV). Let's repeat the lessons Douglas and Grant tried to teach us!
Few decades ago Gavras was a socialist regimes pet. His movies were praised and repeatedly shown in cinemas and on TV. His criticism was usually against rightists and USA, so it was politically correct to watch his movies, which always had wide open message. In this movie a message is here, but almost eaten by two fantastic actors in one of their best roles. Travolta looks only few I.Q.s over Forrest Gump? Yes, if not so, would he take a bag of dynamite without a plan? Hoffmann looks sleepy and slow? Yes, his career is in a dead end street on the start, and he is physically exhausted at the end (Travolta takes pills, and Hoffmann is awaken all the time trying to control people and events as he is used to being a reporter - how should he look like?). But it's Alda who saves the movie not to become a two actors competition (like The Sleuth - but that magnificent movie was meant to be a actors-movie, and Mad City is supposed to be a message-movie).
Now we have someone to hate. But I still feel uncomfortable: it looks like we have to like the man who walks with gun and explosives. Is he a good guy for today standards? Or a relict from Gavras' early days (the lefts he glorified were also the Red brigades and R.A.F.)? Or, maybe Gavras, leaving Europe to make Hollywood movies, accepted US "free arms for everybody" standards? Any of that correct, he lost a credibility to judge anyone (even TV). Let's repeat the lessons Douglas and Grant tried to teach us!