The problem with films like HEATHERS, which purported at last to give an undiluted approximation of teenage experience, was that they were afraid to go all the way. Nihilistic energy and rebellious apathy, say, was allowed to be amusing, but never defining: it was something we grow out of. This was patronising and offensive, and the way such films had a hidden, moral, 'parental' agenda was a complete betrayal of those for whom they presumed to speak. HEATHERS is a fun film, but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth - and I'm not talking about the murder spree.
Lately, though, films have come along, which, like LES 400 COUPS, relate adolescent experience from an adolescent point of view, coloured by an adolescent framework. This is not to say the films aren't adult or complex, it's just that the grown-ups' memories have not a mocking 'mature' commentary undermining them. RUSHMORE is the most obvious example, although SOUTH PARK is perhaps the idea's apotheosis.
All of this is by way of saying that ELECTION seemed to be continuing this trend. We are offered four voiceovers - four points of views - which leads us to expect a splintered, cubist view of experience, an unloaded battle between youth and authority as well as youth against youth (much more dramatic). Unfortunately, there aren't really four points of view at all, just one - that of a self-righteous, feckless loser of an Ethics teacher (although the irony of having former youth star Matthew Broderick playing him is very funny). For all its youthful sheen and energy, this is yet another white man's mid-life crisis.
This is all the more surprising considering the film was made by MTV. There was a lot of sneering at this, as if the film would be just a glorified pop-video, filled with no-brainer tricks. As it is, ELECTION is funnier, more clever and better made than most of the rubbish churned out contemptuously by major and indie alike this year. The main problem is that the style isn't worked out properly. The film fairly bounces along, with day-glo sets, stylised performances and dialogue, smart, oblique situations, breezy pacing, funny editing, sketch-like construction, odd camera angles. This is perfectly in keeping with a film about adolescent crises, but surely not with the story of a burned-out, washed-up, frustrated failure. It could be argued that the style represents manic youth impinging on his life, but the fact is that his problems have nothing (directly) to do with his pupils - they are the archetypal traumas of a man his age.
ELECTION is still a very enjoyable film. The individual teenagers are a clever microcosm of America, with the go-getters doing well, but the dorky rich kids doing just fine too. The figure of Paul is the (unscathed) object of the film's best satire - he is the archetypal football jock - rich popular, an absolute idiot, who takes everything in his beaming, moronic stride, knowing that everything's going to be just dandy, whatever setbacks pop up. He is such a braindead goofball, you revel in Tracy's every attempt to thwart him - better the hard-working go-getter than the smug parasite.
She's a bit frightening too, though, and it's typical of the film's older male bias that she's plainly a caricature, only saved by Reece Witherspoon's brilliant observation of the neurosis, fear and anxiety behind the brittle confidence. The story of Paul's sister is the film's most appealing and moving, a rare case of an actual human being getting through the net, although we could have done with more of her.
ELECTION is quite clever on politics too, on the overwhelming, yet perfectly understandable, even admirable apathy of a generation. Tracy's new conservatism is a joyless Orwellian horror, while the smug liberalism of Mr. M. (surely a nod to Fritz Lang's study of the corruption of childhood) is an ineffective fraud. The film is quite bleak about modern US politics; there is a brilliant running metaphor concerning rubbish and votes, about the confusion in the US between signs and signifiers, that says more about contemporary America than a thousand self-satisfied BOB ROBERTS' ever could. Still, a disappointment.
Lately, though, films have come along, which, like LES 400 COUPS, relate adolescent experience from an adolescent point of view, coloured by an adolescent framework. This is not to say the films aren't adult or complex, it's just that the grown-ups' memories have not a mocking 'mature' commentary undermining them. RUSHMORE is the most obvious example, although SOUTH PARK is perhaps the idea's apotheosis.
All of this is by way of saying that ELECTION seemed to be continuing this trend. We are offered four voiceovers - four points of views - which leads us to expect a splintered, cubist view of experience, an unloaded battle between youth and authority as well as youth against youth (much more dramatic). Unfortunately, there aren't really four points of view at all, just one - that of a self-righteous, feckless loser of an Ethics teacher (although the irony of having former youth star Matthew Broderick playing him is very funny). For all its youthful sheen and energy, this is yet another white man's mid-life crisis.
This is all the more surprising considering the film was made by MTV. There was a lot of sneering at this, as if the film would be just a glorified pop-video, filled with no-brainer tricks. As it is, ELECTION is funnier, more clever and better made than most of the rubbish churned out contemptuously by major and indie alike this year. The main problem is that the style isn't worked out properly. The film fairly bounces along, with day-glo sets, stylised performances and dialogue, smart, oblique situations, breezy pacing, funny editing, sketch-like construction, odd camera angles. This is perfectly in keeping with a film about adolescent crises, but surely not with the story of a burned-out, washed-up, frustrated failure. It could be argued that the style represents manic youth impinging on his life, but the fact is that his problems have nothing (directly) to do with his pupils - they are the archetypal traumas of a man his age.
ELECTION is still a very enjoyable film. The individual teenagers are a clever microcosm of America, with the go-getters doing well, but the dorky rich kids doing just fine too. The figure of Paul is the (unscathed) object of the film's best satire - he is the archetypal football jock - rich popular, an absolute idiot, who takes everything in his beaming, moronic stride, knowing that everything's going to be just dandy, whatever setbacks pop up. He is such a braindead goofball, you revel in Tracy's every attempt to thwart him - better the hard-working go-getter than the smug parasite.
She's a bit frightening too, though, and it's typical of the film's older male bias that she's plainly a caricature, only saved by Reece Witherspoon's brilliant observation of the neurosis, fear and anxiety behind the brittle confidence. The story of Paul's sister is the film's most appealing and moving, a rare case of an actual human being getting through the net, although we could have done with more of her.
ELECTION is quite clever on politics too, on the overwhelming, yet perfectly understandable, even admirable apathy of a generation. Tracy's new conservatism is a joyless Orwellian horror, while the smug liberalism of Mr. M. (surely a nod to Fritz Lang's study of the corruption of childhood) is an ineffective fraud. The film is quite bleak about modern US politics; there is a brilliant running metaphor concerning rubbish and votes, about the confusion in the US between signs and signifiers, that says more about contemporary America than a thousand self-satisfied BOB ROBERTS' ever could. Still, a disappointment.