Review CXII - Wag the Dog

Review 112
Wag the Dog (1997)

Loving the Spanish poster, which translates to smoke screen. Anyway, I came across Barry Levison's Wag the Dog... somehow. And when I saw who starred in it (Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro), along with cameos from some known faces (Woody Harrelson and Jim Belushi), I was surprised I had never heard of this film. But then again, I don't like comedies really, and I don't usually explore political comedies. But the big names made me have hope. I mean, Robert De Niro had even helped to produce this one. Must be good, right?

The presidential election for the United States is eleven days away, and an underage "Firefly Girl" (translation: girl scout) has accused the president of sexual advances. The president is seeking another term, and this could make him lose the election. So what does spin doctor Conrad Brean (Robert De Niro) decide could save the president? A distraction. Something big. How about a war? With Albania? With the help of director/producer Stanley Motts (Dustin Hoffman), this war may be the saving grace in this election.

The shots were weird in this one. There were some weird focuses and zoom-ins that made the film seem like a television show at times. Otherwise, there was nothing particularly interesting going on, unfortunately.

The acting was good and I did actually laugh during the film. Dustin Hoffman's character did give me a good laugh at times, which is usually rare for me in dark comedies. I'll see the humour, but it won't make me laugh out loud. This one did. Comedic genius? No. But it gives a little laugh.

Even though Wag the Dog might not seem like your type of movie and even I didn't really find the film that good, I will recommend it for a watch anyway. And I'll tell you why: The government lies. I'm sure you've all heard about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 when the twin towers fell, or about assassinations maybe being plots from the government. I can't offer you the answers to those theories, it's something you would have to search on your own, but I think it's important you know right off the bat that not everything you see should be trusted. Your government doesn't have your best interests at heart, at least part of the time. And I can offer you a little story to help you understand if you think I'm a raving nut and "conspiracy theorists are just nut bags". It even relates to movies and directors - hurray! Stanley Kubrick released 2001: A Space Odyssey back in 1968, about a year before the first moon landing from the United States. The film has one particular scene where the group of scientists head to the monolith on... Jupiter, was it? Anyway, the monolith is surrounded by film cameras and lighting, almost like a movie set. Could this be a reference to another conspiracy theory about the moon landings being fake? In a way, yes, though the reality is a little less bleak. Apparently Stanley Kubrick was approached in order to film some "moon shots" if the footage from the Apollo 11 mission would have been sub par (Though reading now, it seems this is not true? I don't even know anymore). So I like to assume that the moon landings did happen, but that they needed footage to show the public because this was the television age after all. But really, if this stuff has been going on since the sixties, who is to say they haven't stretched televised reports? After all, Watergate, where Nixon was found falsifying the election votes, was a thing. And there is a thing called synchronicity, but I'll leave you that to look up yourselves if you're interested. I'm not confirming or disproving any theories because seriously, there is so much to say and some of it is major baloney, but if there's one thing I say to take away from Wag the Dog, it's to question everything. Descartes may have lived a long time ago, but the meaning of questioning dogma is still valid and especially appropriate today where knowledge is available at our fingertips.

Wag the Dog - we might be the people, but we're manipulated in order to follow a government plan. The title is appropriate, isn't it?