Behind the Scenes of the Campaign Trail: Long Takes in The War Room
By Aden Jordan
In the essay "When Less Is Less: The Long Take in Documentary", David MacDougall writes extensively on some of the advantages and limitations of utilizing long takes in documentary films. For my essay, I want to apply some of MacDougall's observations on the long take to The War Room (1993), a documentary that came out a year after MacDougall's essay was published. Chris Hegedus and D.A. Pennabaker's documentary The War Room follows the 1992 presidential campaign trail of then-Arkansas governor Bill Clinton and his campaign staff. Clinton only appears briefly in the film, and most of his appearances are taken from previous footage including television 'talking head' clips. Most of the film focuses on James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, the two main leaders behind Clinton's campaign. The film is clearly made in a cinema verite style that includes hand-held cameras, synchronous sound, and a number of prominent long takes. The War Room further cements its status as the product of direct cinema by not including voice-over or text that comments on the events in the film.
The first characteristic to note about the film's use of long takes is that the technique does help to construct a feeling of being present with the campaign team as they brainstorm at their 'war room' headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas. Throughout most of the film, the campaign staff members do not look at Hegedus and Pennabaker's cameras, which gives the impression that the staffers aren't bothered by or paying attention to the filmmakers. This combined with the use of long takes contributes to the 'fly-on-the-wall' effect that the filmmakers seem to be going for.
Some of the long takes in the film provide geographical clarity of where the campaign trail events occur. MacDougall writes that "the long take may be crucial to defining the geographical context within which a character exists or an action takes place"[1] (42). A frequent visual motif in the film is a long take that follows Stephanopoulos and Carville as they walk through different locations. When the campaign team goes to an upscale hotel in New York City to plan for the Democratic convention, there is a long take of Carville and Stephanopoulos walking down a sidewalk and into the hotel. The brainstorming that the team does at the hotel is successful, and there is another long take of the two men walking out of the hotel and down the sidewalk when the staff is checking out of the hotel. These two similar long takes represent a cycle that is part of the film's narrative: the staff has to go from one place to another and surmount obstacles in each place they stop. There are also two consecutive long takes as Carville and Clinton walk down a stairwell and through a hallway to get to a convention stage. These long takes add to the film's 'fly-on-the-wall' style where the viewer can be behind-the-scenes with Clinton before he gives a public address. They also show the division between the public spaces where Clinton speaks, and the private spaces where he interacts with his staff.
It is mainly through long takes that a character portrait of Carville is presented. MacDougall writes, "the long take can make possible a contextualising (sic) behavior which may be essential to recognising (sic) individual human identity" (43). Much can be learned or assumed about Carville through the sections of the film where his actions are filmed in long takes. His motivational speech near the start of the film is presented in a long take, and in his speech Carville comes across as driven and focused on the goals he wants to establish for the campaign. There's another long take where Carville is at a desk discussing President Bush, and as the take goes on Carville's words about Bush become more harsh. The long take builds up to Carville's analogy of Bush being the equivalent of a smelly old calendar, and the viewer sees that the easy-going Carville has a bitter side. Near the end of the film, Carville gives a thank you speech to his staff that is also filmed in a long take. Throughout the speech Carville attempts to hold back tears, and by not cutting during his speech the filmmakers show that Carville is capable of showing sensitivity even while trying to mask it.
One of the drawbacks of using long takes in documentaries is that the technique can make cutting more noticeable or even distracting. There is a scene in The War Room where Mary Matalin, the head of President George Bush's campaign, is waiting to do an interview with a television news reporter. Their interaction is filmed in a long take where Matalin is friendly and semi-flirty with the male reporter. Matalin's amiable demeanor in the long take is in contrast to her earlier appearance where she is serious and aggressive while talking to reporters. The long take of Matalin and the reporter ends right as the reporter goes on the air, and the cut is very jarring mainly because the reporter is finishing a sentence as the cutting takes place. This is more than just a sloppy cut. By filming Matalin and the reporter in a long take, a pace is established and developed that feels intruded on by the inevitable cut.
While the long takes in The War Room do add to the film's very realistic feel, it is important to heed MacDougall's words and "not revert to the naïve view that film footage is some kind of unmediated evidence which contains the "truth" about external reality" (41). This is especially something to keep in mind with The War Room where the two lead subjects, Carville and Stephanopoulos, are men who making their living by helping political figures like Clinton present themselves to the camera in the best possible light. While they might pretend to not notice the cameras around them, they knew that they were being filmed and likely put their best foot forward and did not let their guard down. As Louis Menand writes, "Carville and Stephanopoulos are allowed to pretend that the camera, which they are always perfectly conscious of, is not there" [2] (Menand, 'The War Room: Being There'). After all, they spend most of the documentary trying to prevent scandals from touching Clinton and wouldn't want to create one for him by behaving unfavorably in a documentary.
[1] MacDougall, David. "When Less Is Less: The Long Take in Documentary." Film Quarterly. Winter 1992-1993. Pp. 36-46. Print.
[2] Menand, Louis. "The War Room: Being There". The Criterion Collection. Web. 20 March 2012. http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2203-the-war-room-being-there