What’s Missing in ‘Mitt’

The forthcoming documentary about Romney’s two failed campaigns shows that candidates are, in fact, humans. Why that banal fact is compelling is a testament to how impersonal campaigns are.

National Journal
Brian Resnick
Add to Briefcase
Brian Resnick
Jan. 22, 2014, 12:05 a.m.

There’s a scene close to the be­gin­ning of Mitt, Net­flix’s forth­com­ing doc­u­ment­ary about the can­did­ate’s two failed shots at the White House, that serves two pur­poses. It sets up the theme of the 90-minute movie, and it provides an apt meta­phor for the Rom­ney cam­paign.

It’s 2007, and a Today Show light­ing de­sign­er is set­ting up the stage for Mitt Rom­ney’s first in­ter­view since an­noun­cing his can­did­acy. The tech­ni­cian ex­plains that there are two ways to light the set. One is the safe way, with bright lights, but those lights make the per­son look two-di­men­sion­al. The oth­er meth­od al­lows for more drama and shad­ows, but it’s ris­ki­er.

“We don’t want to of­fend any­body by show­ing off a flaw in the can­did­ate,” he says. “Be­cause im­plied in that is a mis­take. And that means this guy could make a mis­take when he’s pres­id­ent. And we can’t bear that idea. Of course he’s go­ing to make a mis­take when he’s pres­id­ent — he’s hu­man.”

What Amer­ica saw of Rom­ney dur­ing his 2012 pres­id­en­tial cam­paign were those bright, flat lights. This film is about his shad­ows.

* * *

Right be­fore the second pres­id­en­tial de­bate, Rom­ney and a few of his sons sit around a table, listen­ing to a 2002 This Amer­ic­an Life epis­ode fea­tur­ing Dav­id Sedar­is. Sedar­is is talk­ing about a cath­et­er for sports fans who would rather pee in place than leave their seats. The Rom­neys laugh hard at the line “pip­ing hot bag of ur­ine,” shak­ing off Rom­ney’s genu­ine nervous­ness.

This is an in­noc­u­ous scene, but if leaked dur­ing the cam­paign, it would have cer­tainly sparked In­ter­net chat­ter. There’s the Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ate for pres­id­ent re­lax­ing be­fore a de­bate with a Pub­lic Ra­dio In­ter­na­tion­al show, a lib­er­al staple, pun­dits would have jeered.

In­stead, the ef­fect is not so much a hu­man­iz­a­tion of the Rom­neys, but an ex­plan­a­tion of how strange daily life is on the cam­paign trail.

But in this movie, it just shows a hu­man laugh­ing at a piss joke — the most nor­mal of re­ac­tions. 

Film­maker Greg Whiteley fol­lowed the fam­ily for six years, to the re­por­ted dis­sat­is­fac­tion of the cam­paign, first in search of a story about Rom­ney’s Mor­mon­ism, then for a fo­cus on a fam­ily in the na­tion­al spot­light.

The hu­man­iz­ing de­tails Whiteley dis­cov­ers are really quite banal. Rom­ney cleans up trash in more than one scene. The Rom­neys hug — a lot. There are grandkids every­where. There are many wide-angle scenes with many Rom­neys in the frame dis­cuss­ing the events of the mo­ment. Ann comes across as the least-ro­bot­ic Rom­ney. She provides some pas­sion and en­thu­si­asm when her hus­band keeps it cool. She calms him down when he is nervous. And she does it all while deal­ing with mul­tiple scler­osis. When Rom­ney real­izes he has lost, he states it plain and sad. “Boy that’s bad, all those states right?” he says as the elec­tion map fills in.

The ef­fect is not so much a hu­man­iz­a­tion of the Rom­neys, but an ex­plan­a­tion of how strange life is on the cam­paign trail. The uni­verse of the cam­paign ad­heres to a frus­trat­ing lo­gic: Mitt Rom­ney can’t fig­ure out how to ex­plain to voters in 2008 that he’s not a “flip-flop­per” for chan­ging his mind on an is­sue. He walks the in­vis­ible line between ap­pear­ing firm but not angry dur­ing de­bates. In the meme-fueled banter of the last elec­tion, he had reas­on to be guarded. Any­thing out of con­text could spread like wild­fire. Who wouldn’t turn in­to an al­most ro­bot?

But the film fails at a crit­ic­al mo­ment of the cam­paign — Rom­ney’s damning “47 per­cent” com­ment. We’ll nev­er know if that com­ment was an “in the light” re­mark — a two-di­men­sion­al pro­jec­tion for a cer­tain audi­ence — or something more hon­est. Or maybe it falls some­where in between. Whiteley doesn’t ask any ques­tions about it, and he had little ac­cess to the in­ner work­ings of the cam­paign. “I just simply wasn’t there when the 47 per­cent was uttered,” Whiteley said on a re­cent press call. “Whatever dam­age con­trol or spin mode they were in I just didn’t have ac­cess to that. The cam­paign was re­luct­ant to have me film any of them.”

Over­all, he doesn’t ask many ques­tions.  He’s more of a fly on the wall. “I nev­er thought of my­self as a tra­di­tion­al journ­al­ist,” Whit­ley said. “Things went bet­ter when I kept my mouth shut.”

Mitt is not the typ­ic­al polit­ic­al tale; it’s no Game Change. His run­ning mate, Paul Ry­an, is just a ghost in the movie, ap­pear­ing briefly on Elec­tion Day. In­stead, the film is a story of the per­son who be­comes a “loser for life,” as Rom­ney says it. That is, those who lose pres­id­en­tial elec­tions get lost to his­tory.

Los­ing is very much on Rom­ney’s mind throughout the cam­paigns, even though he didn’t pre­pare a con­ces­sion speech in 2012. Rom­ney and his fam­ily spend much time talk­ing about past “losers for life,” cit­ing the fail­ures of John Kerry, Al Gore, Mi­chael Duka­kis, and the like as the ex­amples of what not to do. “We don’t want you to look like a John Kerry” is a re­peated re­frain.

This doc­u­ment­ary alone, al­though it has garnered some crit­ic­al ac­claim, isn’t likely to save him from that for­got­ten fate.

* * *

There’s ob­vi­ously a dif­fer­ence between the can­did­ate that ap­pears in front of the bright lights — the pre­scrip­ted, fo­cus-group tested per­sona — and his more roun­ded edges that emerge when he speaks openly without fear of sound bites. That the sole thrust of this movie is to point that fact out is a test­a­ment to how im­per­son­al elec­tions really are.

I was hop­ing for the sub­jects of the movie to ex­plain this in­tern­al ten­sion between staged cam­paign life and can­did fam­ily life a bit more. But they don’t.

The closest they come is dur­ing a scene in which Whiteley asks Josh Rom­ney, Mitt’s third-eld­est, dur­ing the 2008 cam­paign, “Ever once have you thought this just isn’t worth it?”

Josh re­sponds, “You know, it’s hard for me to do these in­ter­views, be­cause I’m so used to do­ing in­ter­views with the me­dia where I’m so trained to say, ‘Oh, ab­so­lutely not.’ To ac­tu­ally speak my mind is very dif­fer­ent.”

Whiteley asks Josh to trans­late the an­swer from a canned re­sponse to what he really feels.

“This is aw­ful, that’s the trans­la­tion,” he sums up.

This post has been up­dated to in­clude com­ments the dir­ect­or made dur­ing a press call.

What We're Following See More »
FORMER GOVERNOR, AMBASSADOR TO CHINA
Jon Huntsman in Line to be #2 at State
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS
SHOW OF UNITY
Ellison Bringing New DNC Chair Perez To Trump’s Address
2 hours ago
BREAKING
CASE TO CARRY ON
DOJ Drops Claim Against Texas’s Voter ID Law
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Department of Justice "is dropping a discrimination claim against a Texas law that required voters to present identification at the polls." The case will continue to carry on with private groups who filed the lawsuit. The DOJ dropped the claim because Texas is planning to "cure the deficiencies" with the law, according to a draft copy of the dismissal motion the DOJ sent to the Campaign Legal Center. Texas Governor Jim Abbott tweeted a picture of a headline sharing the information with a caption saying "It's a new day in D.C."

Source:
TROUBLE LOOMING?
Durbin Says Government Shutdown Possible
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
AT LEAST 19 TODAY
Jewish Community Keeps Receiving Threats
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login