the ides of march

The 15th of March.

Technically that's what the title means.  The romans used to count dates in a bit of a weird way and the ides was (basically) the middle of the month.

However, what the title is really referring to is the assassination of Julius Caesar, which happened on the ides of March.  I have to confess the title is a little esoteric in relation to the plot - nobody actually gets assassinated, as such, though there is a bit of metaphorical assassination, and perhaps a bit of "death of faith".

Ides is a political film.  It's surprising how few big political films there are.  I guess a big part of the reason for that is that if you come down on one political side you're essentially alienating half (or more) of your audience.  I don't mean films with politics in them, btw, I mean serious films about politics - set in the world of politics and exploring it.

It's like The West Wing is one of only a handful of political TV shows.  Comedies are more common, I think, particularly as satire is generally focused on politics.

Ides of March is quite complex, but there's not a lot I can say that won't give the good stuff away.  It's not too complex that you won't understand it, though.

I've kinda already mentioned the crucial bits - the meat of the plot is about ideology hitting reality and faith in a person hitting the reality of people.  What is quite clever, though, is the way that actually two plots are inter-linked and intertwined in such a way that they are together, but can also be compared and contrasted.

The differences between them are intriguing, but the similarities more so.  In particular the way in which the main character treats the plotline that affects him directly and that affects him more incidentally is very revealing.  When you think about it the film then boils down to hypocrisy, both willing and forced.

And when you start to look at it in that way it's clever how the film sets up all sorts of mirrors at different levels to make the same point.  I mean, it's not really judgemental about it, it's just presenting a reality.

I mean many people will say they hate politicians; that the way they flip-flop and compromise is terrible, yet that is the heart of politics - you compromise on things to achieve consensus.  It is the essence of us as social animals.

I've gotten quite deep there, and a clever thing about the film is that you can enjoy it without having to delve too deeply into that side, although in some ways that is also its flaw.  Because you can enjoy it in this way it could seem relatively flippant - the depth needs a bit of teasing at to really be apparent.

Also, it's not really saying anything you probably didn't already know, unless you were relatively new to this sort of thing.