TAKING ON THE KENNEDYS
A film review by Steve Rhodes
Copyright 1997 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): ***
So what are some of the characteristics one might look for in a first time Congressional representative? How about someone who worked his way through medical school and then went on to set up an inner-city clinic for women with HIV? How about someone who is not wealthy and who donates large portions of his time to serving the poor? Rhode Island's Kevin Vigilante has these credentials, so you might think he would have a good chance when running for an open seat in Congress. Well, if you did, you would be wrong. He had the bad luck to run against a young guy with the last name of Kennedy. As the film says, Vigilante was running against Camelot.
Joshua Seftel's engrossing documentary TAKING ON THE KENNEDYS chronicles the 1994 race of Vigilante against Patrick Kennedy. The film is not about ideology or political parties. It focuses in on the cachet of a famous name, the importance of money, the impact of the media, and the efficacy of negative advertising, even if blatantly false. I saw the film as part of San Jose's Cinequest film festival. I have been told that some PBS stations have played the film as well.
After being treated for cocaine abuse in school and after all of the negative publicity from his connection as a witness in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial, Patrick Kennedy at the young age of twenty-six might be considered an unlikely candidate for Congress. Nevertheless, he announces his candidacy and starts with a fund raiser hosted by his friend Tony Bennett. Guests at the party get autographed pictures of themselves with Bennett and Kennedy.
Throughout the campaign, when Vigilante calls a news conference, the media ignores him. Patrick asks cousins John Jr. or Caroline to visit, and not only do all the local reporters show up, even the national media covers it. These Kennedy events bear a remarkable resemblance to a three ring circus.
Kennedy uses his family's vast wealth to bury Vigilante in negative ads. Early on in the campaign, Kennedy's ads claim that Vigilante is getting most of his money from the big pharmaceutical companies. In fact, he is getting less than ten percent from all medical groups combined and most of his contributions were small ones. Kennedy, on the other hand, is getting thirty percent of his money from trial lawyers, labor unions, and Hollywood. (I should point out that the facts from this review come from the documentary which I have every reason to believe are accurate, but I have no way of verifying the facts as presented.)
Perhaps most surprising of all is that with three weeks left in the campaign and an unstoppable thirty percentage points ahead in the polls, Kennedy buys $100,000 worth of television ad time to accuse Vigilante of having faked an auto injury while in medical school and of trying to extort money from the driver of the other car. Up until this point, Vigilante has been saying nothing but nice things about Kennedy personally, no matter how false his negative ads are. Vigilante says the latest diatribe from Kennedy is too much, and that he never faked any injury. He and his wife go ballistic and feel that they must finally turn negative on Kennedy.
They snoop around a bit and find Kennedy's ex-landlady. It seems that she rented part of her house to him and even made him dinner frequently as a gesture of kindness to him. When he moved out suddenly, he had amassed $3,800 in back rent. He left without paying it, telling her he could not afford to pay his debt to her. Since he never came back and paid and since she is a poor woman in her 80s, she is not happy with Kennedy. She agrees to do an ad against him. Rhode Island has one of the largest concentration of senior citizens in the country. Kennedy's ads targeting older people have been boasting throughout the campaign that only he can be relied upon since Vigilante is just a tool of the drug companies. In the last week of the campaign Vigilante runs an ad with the landlady telling her story. In it she says that if Kennedy didn't care about me, why do you think he would care you.
As we now know, Kennedy won handsomely. The ending credits tells us that he is now the leading contender for Rhode Island's Senate seat in the year 2000.
The most prophetic scene in the film happens early in the campaign when Vigilante is discussing health care with an older woman at a senior citizens' picnic. She, like Vigilante, is dead set against Clinton's health plan. Since they are both passionate on the issue, he asks her if she would consider voting for him. Heavens no, she explains. The other guy afterall is a Kennedy. The others there agree. The only complaint they have with Patrick Kennedy is that his autograph is a little too sloppy. The Kennedy part of his name is not as readable as they would like.
TAKING ON THE KENNEDYS runs 57 minutes. It is not rated but would be a G. I was mesmerized by the film. I recommend it to people of all political persuasions and give it ***.
**** = A must see film. *** = Excellent show. Look for it. ** = Average movie. Kind of enjoyable. * = Poor show. Don't waste your money. 0 = Totally and painfully unbearable picture.
REVIEW WRITTEN ON: February 3, 1997
Opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer's.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews