You Can't Fight in Here...

I recently heard about a documentary from 1993 called The War Room. It covered the presidential campaign of Bill Clinton, from the very first primary battle in New Hampshire through what would ultimately be his election to office. I wasn't sure the subject matter was of inherent interest to me, but I'd heard about it in the context of some "all time great documentary" list somewhere or other, and decided I'd give it ago.

With some additional research, I learned what apparently makes the documentary sit in such high esteem among those who praise it. Clinton's campaign is thought by many to be the first to really embrace "new media" (of the time, of course) and a new philosophy on the art of campaigning. That a documentary crew happened to be there filming it essentially resulted in a film that chronicled the transformation of politics... and a successful one, as luck would have it, since the documentary makers had no way of knowing the outcome when they started filming.

So say those who praise the documentary, anyway. I saw something somewhat different in watching the film today, nearly 20 years later. If a new age of politicking truly began here, then we're still in that age; the vast majority of the film seemed uncomfortably similar to the way U.S. political campaigning works today. Neither the players in their behavior, nor the landscape itself, seem very changed.

Candidates give interviews talking about how "the American people" will surely vote against the incumbent president, because what they "really care about are jobs and the economy." Rally attendees talk about how they're planning to vote for "change." People in the 1992 Democratic National Convention crowd can be seen waving signs for "D.C. Statehood Now!" ("Now" hasn't come any closer.)

Well... actually, a few things have changed. People talk about how heated and toxic the American political climate has become today. And perhaps at a congressional level, you could make the case that's true. At the presidential campaign level, however, things actually seem more vitriolic in the 1992 campaign. We see a clip of a Democratic candidate debate in which -- contrary to anything seen today -- candidates are directly allowed to engage one another. And boy, do they. Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton are seen in a pointed argument with raised voices talking over each other and pointed fingers jabbing.

One other oddity for historians is a brief appearance by Clinton's running mate Al Gore. At one point, he gives what I thought to be the most impassioned, energizing speech shown in the film. The crowd is in a frenzy, and you can't help but think that that guy could have won the presidency in a landslide. Instead, somewhere in the next eight years, the more professorial Gore emerged.

If you're a news junkie, you'll recognize the two primary figures of the documentary: George Stephanopoulos, Clinton's communications director, and James Carville, his lead strategist. (Today, they're noted political reporters for ABC and CNN, respectively.) And the background is littered with other faces that are all over cable news today.

But perhaps the most distinct thing about The War Room is its complete lack of any narration or direct subject interviews. It plays completely "dry," feeling almost like a series of home videos (in part because of the old 4:3 aspect ratio). And essentially, you're left to tell your own story. That could be seen as novel, but I also think this basic lack of perspective keeps it from really being the great documentary it was touted to be. I really think that the collection of clips amounts to an inkblot test that ultimately reveals nothing because it challenges no conceptions. Whatever your opinion of Bill Clinton before you see this film, whatever your memories of his campaign might be (if you've been around since then, of course), this film will not change your mind. It won't show you anything you didn't know.

As a piece of archived history, there is some interest here, and I suppose there will continue to be in the future. But as a documentary film, it does little more than illustrate that "the more things change, the more they stay the same." It's entertaining enough, but certainly not a truly great documentary. I rate it a B-.