Chappaquidick anyone?

I wonder how many people below a certain age even know about the incident? It raises the questions: who is the target audience for this, and who thought this would be a popular topic for a film?

 

Don't answer that!

 

JASON CLARKE is one of my favorite actors, so I'm in...

 

I like political movies so I'll probably go see it. Speaking of Ted Kennedy, wasn't the movie Blowout supposed to be a play on that whole thing?

 

I went to see it yesterday, with my expectations set quite low. I originally wanted to see "Death of Stalin", but the local theatre wasn't offering an early matinee showing that fit my limited schedule to see movies.

Honestly, I was surprised that the film is as good as it is. It's not as fast-paced as the film trailer makes it appear to be, instead it is dark, moody. The filmmakers don't go down many sensationalist/speculative roads (i.e., were Kennedy and Mary Jo having an affair), but the script doesn't spare Kennedy in terms of his utter moral failings regarding the accident, and his venal desire to protect his political career. To those who would suggest there isn't enough story here to support a 2-hour film, I disagree wholeheartedly. This is a quality film, it isn't tabloid trash. Even the Boston Globe, a newspaper that has tied itself to the Kennedys for a hundred years, served up a review by its film critic that was surprisingly positive.

‘Chappaquiddick’ movie review: A flawed yet human Ted Kennedy - The Boston Globe

This isn't "The Godfather", but it's also not a junky TV movie, either. It was worth my time and money, and if you have an interest in the subject matter, it might be worth yours, too.

 

I'm more motivated to see Chappaquiddick than the best picture winner of 2018, The Shape of Water, the latest "Hobbit" movie (especially after having to sit through the excruciating end of "Return of the King") or the latest Marvel or DC comic book (and don't tell me to use another term) movie. I care about the story and development of characters more than explosions.

Thanks for the review signothetimes53.

 

You ain't missing not seeing ANY of those movies.

 

OK: you've sold it to me. I'll go and see it - if it gets a release in this country.

They were probably wise not to go down the 'did they or didn't they? route, as from what is known about M-JK's character, it would have been unlikely for her to have a relationship with a married man, especially one whose wife was pregnant. The most likely explanation is that Kennedy saw a tabloid scandal erupting when he saw the passer-by coming towards them to offer directions and, by striving to avoid one scandal, he created a bigger one.

 

How could anyone objectively think this wasn’t a great subject for a film?

 

Great and popular aren’t always mutual.
I never said it wasn’t a great subject , but given the profit driven, focus grouped environment of movie making as it exists, I can’t see the studio thinking this would be popular.

 

The only way this movie got made was because almost every Boomer-era Kennedy has passed, including Ted himself. It could've been made multiple times in the last two decades, but I think it's safe to assume they had enough clout to suppress it. That time has thankfully passed.

It seems to take a very neutral approach to the topic, considering even the most benign explanations do not cast Kennedy in a favorable light.

For those who think Chappaquiddick is just a partisan or non-essential footnote - Ted was the last of a great political dynasty, and this tragedy -- while not as violent or profound as what befell his siblings -- was the sole reason he never reached the Oval Office.

That along makes it pretty darn important, historically.

 

I enjoyed it. A real lesson in human nature ... and how powerful and manipulating political machines can be, on whatever side of the isle they are ("is the senator ok?"). Instead of the film showing bias imo it showed how tortured Ted Kennedy was ... and the possibility that the poor woman may have been saved.

 

I am interested in this film for one reason. One of my favourite comedians, Jim Gaffigan, is in it. I assume he doesn't do his bacon bit in the film.

 

Saw the movie and thought it was pretty good. Most reviews seemed to suggest that the pace ground to halt at times, but I thought the telling moved along just fine. I thought Jason Clarke's portrayal of conflicted Teddy was quite good (kind of amazing that Clarke was born July 17, 1969). Joe Gargan comes off quite well, mostly as the only person of upstanding moral character in the story. Bruce Dern as Joe Sr. was intriguing as well. Overall, a good movie about an interesting piece of American history.

 

Gaffagan plays it totally 'straight' and pulls off a convincing performance as a confused and conflicted staffer. Didn't know he had it in him.

 

Marvel = films written for and by fifteen year old boys. (pure hyperbole)
While they may have a place in the "current" celluloid landscape, they certainly say nothing to me about my life.

That said, I look forward to seeing Chappaquidick.

 

Just returned from seeing this movie. I really enjoyed it. Additionally, I was happy they didn't use the typical soundtrack songs for a movie from this era.

 

I agree with most of your points, and cannot say any are wrong, but I question the extent to which the Kennedy’s were a true political dynasty outside of Massachusetts. John Kennedy barely defeated Nixon, Robert Kennedy won fewer primaries and had less of the primary popular vote than Eugene McCarthy in 1968, and Edward Kennedy could not even win his party’s nomination against a fairly unpopular incumbent in 1980. I don’t believe their children did much of anything beyond being representatives from Massachusetts here and there.

Nevertheless, they were always at least in the political conversation for 25 or more years. They were the elephant in the room, but were they much more than that?

And by the way, I really enjoyed the movie. I thought it was pretty fair and stuck to what is known about the event (such that it is). Not many liberties were taken, and it struck me as plausible throughout.

 

Did anyone here ever read Piers Anthony's On A Pale Horse? It's a supernatural book literally about Death Incarnate. Death learns that Satan was going to kill a future president (Ted) and he intervenes, transferring the death to his passenger. Satan trolls Death telling him that his action will have no effect effect, because the end outcome is the same. The Kennedy person will now never become president.

I never did finish the Incarnations of Immortality series, but the first book was pretty enjoyable.

 

Reminds me a bit of the ending of The Dead Zone.

 

Wow. I actually do remember reading that book.

There was also a neat low budget science fiction movie that came out in the mid 1990s with a similar idea. All I remember is that a time traveler interrupts the assassination of JFK by tipping him off in Dallas. Before leaving, he encourages the Kennedy brothers to avoid scandal and remain faithful to their wives. The rest of the movie was an alternate reality in which JFK lived and served two terms.

The best part was the bittersweet last third of the film, where we discover that the time traveler's life didn't turn out so well in the new timeline he created. Jackie figures out his identity and supports him for the rest of his life out of gratitude.

 

The Kennedys certainly had the most support in their home state, sure. The movie even touches several times on the notion that the citizens of Massachusetts, in spite of their mixed feelings over Teddy's situation, would ultimately support him, and they did. The rest of the country, not so much. Ted lost the nomination in 1980 because he bungled a Chappaquiddick question right out of the starting gate.

The rest of the country did deify the Kennedys for quite some time, not for their political acumen but for more base emotional reasons: the unrealized potential stolen from us by two untimely assassinations and a terrible scandal.

 

Also, the "why do you want to be President" question where he rambled aimlessly for two minutes without providing anything resembling a meaningful answer. They touched upon that idea (that Kennedy never really truly wanted to be President, other than because he was a Kennedy and it was expected of him) during one of the conversations he had with his father (albeit one-sided) in the movie.

 

I did a bit more research today about Robert Kennedy's foray into New York politics in 1964. I was a bit surprised to discover that one year after his brother was assassinated, Kennedy received only 53.5% of the votes for senator. Lyndon Johnson, on the other hand, received over 68% of the popular vote in New York. Johnson received more than one million more votes than Kennedy. Stated differently, roughly one in seven voters voted for LBJ but otherwise cast their vote for Kenneth Keating, Kennedy's Republican challenger.

 

Getting back to the movie, did it address the fact that a purse belonging to another one of the "Boiler Room Girls" was found in the car? I don't recall that it did. I don't think it mentioned the fact that the police officer who saw the car shortly before the accident said he thought there might have been three people in the car. Probably a good choice, since the officer probably was mistaken and the purse could have been left in the car by mistake (perhaps its owner had been given a lift earlier by Kennedy's driver). It probably would have just created unnecessary confusion in the storyline.