Double Feature: ‘Fair Game’ Review: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

So there’s a theory in the film world about how certain well-known actors can never shed their public image in order to take a role. Like how we’ll see Mel Gibson in Mad Max and now think, “Anti-Semitic wifebeater” or see Miley Cyrus in any feature film and think, “Let the film strip snap please oh the humanity!”

Sean Penn may have that going against him in Fair Game, a captivating political drama about Valerie Plame, the CIA agent whose information was declassified as punishment for her husband’s criticism of the Oval Office. Granted, these were the Bush years, and we all know how much Sean Penn adored this administration.

I spent a good portion of the film wondering which sentiments belonged to Sean Penn the person and which were his character’s, Joe Wilson. Distracting me from what was one of the greatest undercover censorship attacks on a citizen should be one of the last things this movie should suffer from.

Fair Game is based off of the true events that entangled some untruthful telling about weapons of mass destruction and covert operations gone wrong. Joe Wilson is painted as a misunderstood  patriot who recovered intelligence for his wife’s employer,the CIA,  only to have it “misread” during Bush’s State of the Union address. In retaliation, he took to the NY Times and publicly denounced Bush’s declaration of war on falsified grounds. Maybe a Vietnam II was too soon. But men towards the top of the ladder decided to silence  Mr. Editorial in the most spiteful of ways.

Wait, what happened to our girl, Valerie? Ah, there she is! I thought we almost lost her.

And that’s another issue with this movie, for as emotionally engaging and captivating the story is, politics is the Godzilla in the room terrorizing this family (and to an extent, the audience) to no end. Granted, it is the G-Men who ruin Ms. Plame’s career aspirations and her CIA missions in progress. But who is the star of the picture? I felt that the leading lady does an awful lot of shrinking to her kitchen as opposed to her husband’s cable news rebel rousing. I know it was the director’s intention to show the grace of a fallen agent, but come on, she was a secret agent. Was Joe Wilson really the only one making phone calls and fighting the accusations? I find it hard to believe that such a self-sufficient woman just stops operating on survival instincts. Defeat is not an option on the field why take it from the White House lawn?

Also, I’d like to address the style of the movie. Dear Doug Liman, I know you practically invented the shaky-camera technique in film ( not really) , but could you please slow it down for audiences? Some of us are reaching for nausea medication and the movie isn’t half bad! Too much shakiness and you loose your audience as they keel over from dizziness. Granted there were some scenes that warranted the intensity of “shaky-cam,” and it has calmed down considerably since the third installation of the Bourne trilogy. I believe in a world where action can be captured without filming from a rollercoaster.  Give political dramas that don’t involve an earthquake feel, please?

But to be fair in this game, the movie does go a long way to depict the facts, though much of the narrative is fabricated to connect the dots. The supporting cast is very much believable. A Kudos bar to the guy cast as Karl Rove; he genuinely took me by surprise. I felt the story moved along pleasantly in order to show the tortured anguish of a country’s betrayal.We certainly feel the pain at the heart of this family so it becomes even more perverse to learn that it was caused by the ideological crusade of others. That’s a special kind of moment we don’t want to go all Jason Bourne on.

Waltzing with the White House is a dangerous game folks. Although the movie lacks a  focus on the lead character, it is a thrilling spy disaster movie with magnificent actors. It’s pretty much better than anything we saw back in October, but I feel I am only being fair. B–