Review: "Vice" Sets Its Sights a Little Too High

Christian Bale in Vice

The latest film from director Adam McKay couldn't have better timing if it tried. With 2018 coming to a close amid a government shutdown and lots of in-fighting, the chance to reflect on what we expect from the people in charge has never been more of a prominent subject. It's why Vice feels like it should be a bigger deal, where the most notorious vice president in 21st century American history is finally scrutinized in a text that fossilizes him as the awful human he was. It's the part of McKay's experimental film making that succeeds, throwing the audience into a story that will boil the blood of anyone who currently lives in the America that Dick Cheney helped to mold over 50 years. However, McKay is maybe a bit too obsessed with the style to ever make one element shine above the rest. The film is a mess that often reaches blips of greatness, and overall it's a missed opportunity to create something singular and definitive of not only Cheney's life, but of the 2018 the film was born into.

In 2016, McKay did the unthinkable when he turned the 2008 housing crisis into one of the funniest economics lessons in cinematic history. It earned him an Oscar and established him as more than a comedic filmmaker. He was important, and his ability to connect his audience to dense information that others would struggle to convey only made the whole experiment all the more of a miracle. So, what is different this time with Vice? For starters, Cheney (Christian Bale) is one person whose impact influenced far more change than most Americans have been able to properly contextualize. He worked in some capacity during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush administration while learning how to climb the ladder and become, as he puts it, a "servant of power." He was raised under the careless leadership of Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carrell) where he learned how to cut corners, get the corrupt conversations off tape and schmooze with the right people. The thing that makes it work is Bale, whose Cheney is gruff, hiding behind his fists, feeling calculated in every move he makes. By the end, he's only thinking about power, robbing him of understood empathy for anything other than power. As deadpan as he is, he's horrifying, and it's a credit to Bale's most convincing transformation yet.

However, Cheney is a figure whose life cannot be as easily summarized by a small time frame like The Big Short. By comparison, Cheney's film is an episode of the late 20th century Republican party, creating a trail of destruction as he helps to shape the world that we currently live in. McKay isn't subtle in dropping every possible hint about how prime players of the 70's, 80's, and 90's are seen today. Some of them play as asides, such as the use of Roger Ailes and the rise of Fox News. There's footage of Ronald Reagan saying "Make America great again" during a speech. So much of the film may be archival, but it informs 2018 in a way that is haunting. History has been building to this moment, and it becomes about more than Cheney. However, McKay's ambitions aren't fully met as he chooses to once again use a collage format akin to Jean-Luc Godard's mix of text and language to convey emotion as the audience is rammed into several moments of cognitive dissonance. It would be effective if it was more centered on a man, exploring in a way that was more streamlined on his key moments. Instead, it's a film that's a bit too unsure of what it wants to be. 

McKay's downfall as a filmmaker is that he took the wrong lessons from the runaway success of The Big Short. While it's true that Vice does an incredible job in revealing how much Cheney had done over his career, little of it holds weight. There's not enough depth to feel like he's more than a distant figure being observed through a prism, specifically through one that grows impatient with each moment. The first scene features Cheney as a middling college student who gets pulled over for a D.U.I. before jumping aggressively to the moment he discovers the 9/11 attacks and plays the role of leader. Had the film been better formed, both moments would compliment each other in a compelling way. Instead, it feels like a cryptic collage that never reaches catharsis. There's nothing gained by meeting Cheney as a frat boy. The disorganization doesn't often add weight to the horrors. What is there is something that distracts from the core ideas. When things get too serious, McKay applies a layer of satire that feels disingenuous - and not in a way that adds to the story. By the time his technique works, such as Cheney introducing his cabinet via a Clue board game-style montage, it's too overbearing to fully work. The film is a ball ricocheting off of walls at great speed, managing to get a lot of hits but even more misses.

As can be assumed by the director's vision, the style is a bit surreal as well. With Cheney being knee-deep in politics in ways that would confuse the average viewer, it makes sense why he would choose to go into detail about Cheney's many gruesome decision. However, there's so much that needs to be understood that it often feels like Cheney walks into a scene, sits, and lets someone (either on screen or in voice over) describe the complex ideas in great detail. Sure, some of it is fun, but it becomes more prominent as the film continues - and it's all so exhausting. For as much as having a waiter (Alfred Molina) detail the impacts of torture adds to the plot, it comes after dozens of scenes where someone is nudged into giving a lecture that breaks the natural flow of a film. There's too much going on, and it loses sight of Cheney at times. Instead of making it a total denouncement of its subject, it makes him sound kind of cool that he was smart enough to do anything. Meanwhile, it helps to make those around him seem a bit dumber, if just so that he seems like the smartest man in the room.

Covering the life of a controversial figure is never easy, but by adding a style that dilutes the vision it becomes more impersonal and less effective. What is gained by having a narrator (Jesse Plemons)? Even when it factors into the plot, it feels like a gimmick. The only thing that really works is the feeling like McKay is frustrated by a lot of things. He leaves the viewer with a sense of animosity towards Cheney, and there's plenty of understanding why that is. Vice, for all of its faults, is a film that sets out to be a feature length smear campaign and succeeds most of the time. However, it's better viewed as an essay where every point is backed by a collage of ideas, including a general condescension that society was maybe too dumb to notice the harm this man was doing. There's a lot to be annoyed about, but most of all it feels like it's meant to be a piece of activism. If Vice makes you angry, then fight the current administration to keep corruption from having power over you. That's the consensus the film wants, though it's backed again by condescension to its audience, who are picking petty fights and finding more joy in viral videos. There's something to say there, but by making it about the audience as well as Cheney, it only makes it harder to tell a story successful enough to be informative and entertaining.

The best that can be said about Vice is that it's an interesting failure. With such an important message to share, it can never be a total misfire. It's just one that doesn't compliment McKay's new style that features a serious narrative surrounded by a glossy pop culture shine that is sometimes embarrassing in its dissonance. Had the story been more straightforward, there's a good chance that this would be the masterpiece that McKay clearly set out to make. Instead, it throws the audience around one man's life and asks how it applies to their life in a way that never lets the thesis get answered in a satisfying way. It's not the worst film, especially in moments where McKay pairs disconcerting imagery in provocative collages, but it feels like one that is undone by the hubris of the man who made it. You'll learn a lot about Cheney from the film, especially if you're not a history major, but it'll feel far more tedious and underwhelming than it did last time McKay did this. For a film that could punctuate this moment and time so much better than it does, its lack of ability to get there makes it a lot more of a disappointment.