The Hunting of the President (2004) User Reviews

Too Much to Cover in 90 Minutes

[dglink · 8/10 · 4 October 2004]

Another in a series of recent political documentaries that started with "Fahrenheit 911" and whose end does not seem to be in sight, "The Hunting of the President" is the least successful so far. While the film does have its moments, especially those that detail the brutalizing of Susan McDougal, the filmmakers try to squeeze too much into the short running time. Comments, images, and events flash by, especially towards the beginning, and left this viewer a bit confused. The clips from old movies, which I assume were for comic effect, could have been omitted as they only added to the clutter. Perhaps someone who has read the book would be able to follow the portrayed events better than someone who has to rely on their memory of newscasts from the period. While the film is definitely worth watching if for nothing else than as a history review, the talk given by President Clinton at the film's premiere, which is included on the DVD, is a concise and masterful lecture on political trends in American history and is more engrossing than much of the documentary. Mr. Clinton easily could pursue yet another successful career as a history professor

Chronicle of a witch hunt

[=G= · 7/10 · 1 October 2004]

The Hunting of a President is a documentary which chronicles the right wing beyond-all-reason attempt to unseat President Clinton during his two terms in office. Although it offers insights into the innerworkings of the anti-Clinton cabal, the film is more historical retrospective than revealing sensationalism as it pulls together the salient elements of what ultimately proved an ill-wrought Republican debacle. You'll see a rehash of everything from the Paula Jones brouhaha to the Whitewater scandal to the Ken Star witch-hunt to the Lewinsky affair and more all neatly laid out in a 90 minute package. Under special features is a talk by Bill Clinton which adds historical context and ancillary commentary. Well worth a look for anyone who lived through the 90's feeling as though they never quite understood what all that flack was about. (B)

Bravo McDougall

[phillipflynn · 7/10 · 14 August 2005]

I liked the documentary - particularly Clinton's speech which is contained in the 'Extras' on the DVD where he outlines the historical context of the film. Following the Whitewater/Lewinsky scandal from a distance (i.e. in Australia) you felt that there had to be something in it but I underestimated how well the Press, and therefore public opinion, could be manipulated in a post-Watergate world. I will now seek out the book or perhaps Clinton's autobiography in order to fill in some of the blanks. A well constructed piece which allows the main players to tell it for themselves and avoids preaching at the audience a la Mike Moore style. You don't have to dislike Clinton to be disgusted by what was done to Susan McDougall.

The Vasty Deep

[afhick · 9/10 · 28 June 2004]

Less a vindication of Clinton than an indictment of the press, this film provides a timely commentary on the excesses of journalistic zeal that almost brought down a presidency. I was especially moved by the women players, including Susan McDougal, aka Joan of the Ozarks, who was treated like a serial killer during her two years in prison, after she ran afoul of nasty-minded Ken Starr and his minions. I also like the brave and witty portrait of ex-Arkansas Governor Riley's wife Claudia. The facts presented here may seem all too familiar by now, but we can thank authors Joe Conason and Gene Lyons for unearthing a good number of them. Students of history will long debate the merits of the Clinton presidency, but the incompetence of the press is now an established fact.

Finally, the truth

[paulfreed1 · 7 November 2004]

After seeing this movie I feel even more certain that we should change the

constitution to allow Presidents to serve more than 2 terms. Clinton was the greatest President in my lifetime and I am Embarrassed for our country with

the recent election of Dubya. How could 58 million people be so DUMB! We

are hated and despised throughout the world. Our economy is in the tank and

over 1000 of our finest have died in an illegitimate war. When Clinton lied, no one died! His lie was about a personal failing. He was pushed into the

impeachment thing by right-wing zealots. If those idiots had been doing their job and not salivating over a sex scandal maybe the President could have

concentrated on more important things. I blame the right-wing congressmen

and Senators for the build up to 9/11.

An interesting, but somewhat flawed documentary

[neilrichards · 6/10 · 2 July 2005]

By the very topic of this documentary, it would be hard for it not to be thought-provoking. However, I wasn't a fan of the way it was put together. The stock footage from old black-and-white that was used throughout to illustrate different events for which there was no other footage (raids on houses, sexual dalliances etc) was somewhat off-putting. What's wrong with talking heads? Are our collective attention spans so low now that we have to be constantly bombarded with images, even if they do not directly relate to the subject?

I also thought the whole thing was rushed toward the end, with everything Lewinsky-related brushed over. This could be because the filmmaker/author is a Clinton friend and/or he feels the whole event was rather tawdry and not worthy of further analysis (possibly very true). However, if you do not have a great understanding of the 'Whitewater' affair (and I didn't) then you may find some of the film rather confusing as you try to put together the various names, faces and their roles within the whole debacle (I'm still trying to put together a couple of pieces of info and people - I'm like Jerry Seinfeld at the movies - "Why did he kill that guy? I thought he was with them? Why did he kill him?")

Overall, this film raised some interesting, but not entirely original, points about the way the right-wing media and conservative groups are able to demonise and manipulate politics and events to suit their own needs. However, if you watch this on DVD, I strongly recommend the extra feature, which is of Clinton giving (an apparently off-the-cuff and without notes) 30-minute speech at the premiere of the film. Although this highlights the obvious partisanship behind the movie, it also reminds you what a brilliant, analytical mind the ex-president has - something the present incumbent could never hop to match.

Makes Powerful Case For Abuse Of Power

[wiluxe-2 · 10/10 · 27 June 2004]

Gene Lyons and Joe Conason's book THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT had no photos of the major players, a real shame when you have a huge cast and no way to keep the players straight . Seeing the film brings the faces of some of the story's less well-known personalities--the Dogpatch types from Arkansas (such as the bait shop owner and the Arkansas troopers), the White Supremacists, and the members of the Arkansas Project--into the light of day...Susan McDougal emerges from this film a bona fide hero, as she should. I thought I knew this area of the story well, but there are chilling details about her treatment by the Independent Counsel that are shockingly disturbing...The film doesn't try to excuse Clinton's behavior vis-a-vis Monica Lewinski; the real outrage, it suggests, is the abuse of power within the Office of the Independent Counsel. For that it makes a very strong case. A powerful film indeed.

interesting, if stylistically flawed documentary

[postmanwhoalwaysringstwice · 7/10 · 23 April 2007]

The impressively assembled documentary feature "The Hunting of the President" traces the decade long attempt by several key figures on the "right" side of the proverbial aisle to discredit the candidacy and then the presidency of former U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton. The film is based on the bestseller by the same name by Joe Canason and Gene Lyons, so this companion piece plays out like a flashy abridged version of many of the events depicted in that exposé. The film follows the many ways that the character and credibility of Clinton was chiseled at again and again by these figures from his position as Arkansas governor through his impeachment trials as President, as well as the quickly developed conservative media that began to sell lies as history. Some of the uncovered distortions presented here do feel like low level conspiracy theories, or at the very least something out of the Amy Fisher story. Like all politically charged documentaries this one does take sides, but given so many ethical quandaries it's hard not to agree with its stance. Morgan Freeman, the new go-to guy for documentary narration, adds a certain dignity to the film whose movie-of-the-week narrative often becomes stylistically irritating. In the end like him or hate him, love him or leave him, Clinton is not the tragic figure in "The Hunting of the President". That space is left open for the likes of Susan McDougal who was imprisoned for two years for refusing to commit a crime. The story behind that is something well worth watching.

Well documented arguments

[dstern1 · 9/10 · 25 July 2004]

I rate this documentary as a "9" on a scale where "Bowling for Columbine" is a "10" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" is an "8."

The film makers show in detail how a group of right-wingers manipulated the system in order to bring-down an American President. It further shows the abuse of power by a Republican Congress and a vicious "independent" counsel.

It further shows an American newsmedia obliging in its coverage.

The true heroine of the story was Susan McDougal who went to prison rather than commit perjury.

Lest we forget that Ken Starr released the video of Clinton's deposition on the same day the President addressed the UN on terrorism. How much more could we have done about terrorism if the President was not distracted by the baseless attacks?

Once More Into The Breach

[fha-2 · 7/10 · 16 July 2004]

The basic theme of this documentary, `The Hunting of the President', is that Bill Clinton was the target of an opportunistic right-wing campaign to dishonor and undermine him. When the so-called conspirators were unable to destroy him through overboard exposure of the `Whitewater' fiasco, they leaped on the alternate scheme involving his sexual escapades beginning while he was governor of Arkansas and in the White House that ultimately resulted in an impeachment trial by the US Senate, which was plainly a disguised attempt to oust Mr. Clinton instead of the traditional coup d'etat.

I must say that although I am sympathetic with Clinton being so maliciously hounded and persecuted; however, he was indeed substantially the philanderer they made him out to be. The facts the film presented have already exhaustively been presented during the impeachment years leaving very little novelty in the film.

As a historical piece, it would offer some insight to future generations who did not experience the public hysteria. Some of the comments by David Brock, the former conservative reporter who first exposed the Paula Jones sexual harassment contentions, demonstrates that most of the media networks of so-called rich conservatives were determined to break Clinton's back any way they could.

It is almost impossible to determine whether the mainstream conservatives initiated the inquisition into Clinton's financial and sexual affairs or whether they were the result of opportunistic right-wing wacko investigators who presented their evidence to the conservative media. Under either theory, the mainstream snapped it up and ran with it. The rabid conservative elements seem to be constantly on the lookout for any tidbit of information that would tend to discredit or otherwise harm any of their imagined liberal protagonists.

Susan McDougal is presented as an obscure woman who was sent to prison for contempt of court because she would not cooperate with the Starr investigation, suggesting that she knew more than she let on. At the guest screening itself, Ms McDougal in person came across as sincere and unassuming, willing to tell all to a hungry liberal audience who viewed the film at the Roxy in the Mission District of San Francisco. She still professes her original stance that special prosecutor Kenneth Starr had offered her immunity or some sort of leniency if she would lie for them in their case against the Clintons. She refused then and continues to rebuff any assertion that Clinton had done something wrong. Accordingly, Starr had her cited and imprisoned for contempt of court. What she did not tell us was that she was suddenly moved to Sybil Brand Institute, Los Angeles County's jail for women, to face California criminal allegations that she stole money while working for the famous conductor, Zuben Mehta, and his wife in Los Angeles. She was subsequently acquitted with the assistance of celebrated criminal attorney, Mark Geragos.

Some of the tales she spun at the theater about the cruelty and torture she observed and personally endured are highly suspect, particularly when she was an inmate at Sybil Brand county jail in Los Angeles. I cannot imagine imparting any veracity to some of her claims since Los Angeles has more hungry attorneys just chomping at the bit to sue the jail for much less heinous malfeasance on the part of the jailors than the sweet Ms McDougal related to us. It is also inconsistent and surprising for someone to relate such extraordinary tales of horror without more cynicism or bitterness.

The film itself has a clear message that some unsavory and powerful right-wing Americans had the power and the desire to almost `take over the throne' so to speak. For the conservatives, they needed a Clinton to hate since they no longer had the Communists to rant at. However, the film falls short in presenting facts showing why it was so easy for the right to sway the country against Clinton. The allegations concerning Monica Lewinsky were hardly touched upon, nor was the impeachment process adequately presented. Clearly, there were many reasons the people lost faith in Clinton. So, when he actually did tell the truth, we could not or would not really believe him. Thus, when it began to become obvious that Bill was actually the victim, how could the people consider him to be an innocent one?

Directed by well-known Clinton friend Harry Thomason and Nickolas Perry, the film has some unique effects such as using old film clips from classic black & white films to illuminate a point. Together with `Fahrenheit 9/11', this picture show should wake up some of those complacent people who think `the king can do no wrong'. Otherwise, the film mainly preaches to the `liberal choir' who most likely will make up the lion's share of the audience. As for the conservative audiences, I doubt that they will give it much credence. I found the movie itself a bit tedious and somewhat redundant, thus aiding my sporadic cat-napping. Otherwise, it had an important message to deliver, albeit in a container that could have been better conceived.

One Sided Trash!

[NickGepetto · 1/10 · 17 June 2004]

I was a guest to a recent invitation-only viewing. I believe I was the only fair minded person in this hand-picked audience. I liked Clinton and thought he had true leadership skills. I disagreed with him on many social issues but thought his policies were well founded and realistic.

But this 'Fakeumentary' is the same tired, rehashed drivel that's been shoved down our throat for years. It's always someone else's fault, Clinton didn't do anything wrong, 'It's a conspiracy', I tell you!

I have spoken with Ken Starr. He is an honorable man who did not want the job he was instructed to complete. He performed his assigned duties with thoroughness and truthfulness. Of course Clinton supporters are upset with him - He uncovered and revealed things to the American people that were negative to Clinton!

Thankfully for history, Clinton dribbled some spooge on Monica's dress. Otherwise we would not have such clear evidence of his blatant lies.

Overall, silly and way-tired propaganda filmed with Hollywood quality. No balance, nothing negative towards Clinton.

One of the Best Documentaries Ever Made

[pswift · 10/10 · 28 June 2004]

The Hunting of the President is one of the best documentaries made. In what has turned out to be such a banner and distinguished year for documentaries, including Morgan Spurlock's "Super Size Me," Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", as well as "The Control Room" and "The Corporation", this one stands out above the pack.

The film makes a step-by-step examination of the attempted character assassination on then Governor of Arkansas (and later current President Bill Clinton), from 1990, before his ascension to The White House in 1992, to the year 2000, when the investigations into Clinton's financial and personal affairs were basically over.

With its clear focus and incisive interviews with some of the key spinsters who worked both for and against Clinton at the time, this documentary makes you aware of the kind of back room wrangling and political positioning that goes on when the two main political institutions are vying for power and public attention.

The film does not use heavy handedness, at all, in its treatment of the subject matter. Instead, it is its real seriousness and mature focus on the topic at hand that provide the fuel and fire that lead you to its firm conclusions. This may turn-off some viewers, but no one will be able to deny the film's findings or minimize its well thought-out examination of past political goings-on.

This documentary, like Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", is both instructive and historical and should not be missed by anyone. Overall grade: solid A.

"He never asked"

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 9 May 2019]

This goes into the various efforts in the 90's to take down the President.

I would have to say that the single most noteworthy thing about this is the manipulative, sometimes outright deceptive, editing: one of the very first things said in this is that many of the people wanted to bring down Clinton considered him a traitor, and thus wanted him shot, which is paired with what appears to be video of actual executions(!). Elsewhere(seemingly not there. However, even if I am incorrect about that, it is a dirty trick to pull, which is ironically what it is decrying), it uses stock footage, and clips from movies, when describing things that were done or discussed, with the obvious intent that the viewer connect the two. It features filmed material making the people who fought Bill look ignorant and ones to dismiss, which, if you record someone enough, you can get of just about anyone, whether they're someone that should be taken seriously or not. The music is overdramatic, as is the narration by the immensely talented Morgan Freeman. It would be silly to suggest that any of this was by accident. As this was cut together by one of the two directors, it's clear this wasn't taken away from the filmmakers and turned into something it wasn't.

Several interviewed Conservatives admit they knew these were lies. Some are said to(not on camera by themselves) regret their involvement. The most compelling part is the story of Susan McDougal and her husband. Especially how horribly she was treated in prison, as countless inmates are. One almost wishes they had used that as a jumping-off point to talk about the conditions those live under, instead of the actual subject. And I say that as a life-long Left-winger. I do appreciate that this lets the viewer know, if he did not already, that she has since advocated for reform. That is very admirable. Many refuse to help those who are in an awful situation, once they themselves get out of it.

I recommend this mostly for those what a career in cinema, studying how to most effectively get certain reactions out of an audience. The information featured herein can be found elsewhere in less partisan form. My rating is based purely on the technical expertise featured in this. 7/10

A few good moments, but ultimately weak, disappointing

[jsteiger · 1/10 · 1 August 2004]

With the political polarization of America nearly complete, the majority of viewers of this movie don't want or need a reasoned evaluation of its contents. Those fans of Clinton and Michael Moore, who see a right-wing conspiracy around every corner, will cheer rabidly. Avid Bush supporters will dump on the film, labeling it another 'crockumentary.' So, unless you are in that tiny minority of viewers who wants an objective opinion about the movie, you should read no further.

Personally, I thought that Clinton was, to some extent, the victim of a witch-hunt that ultimately hurt the country by distracting the president and clouding his judgment. So I went into this film willing (if not exactly ready) to be convinced by exciting new evidence.

But this film showed no balance at all. For example, the film tries to dismiss the notion that Clinton was a serial sexual harasser by presenting only the most blatantly biased information. Take the case of Paula Jones. The film actually spends several minutes trying to dismiss Jones by attacking the motivations of her attorney! We learn that Jones's attorney, an attractive blond, has right wing leanings, AND supported an anti-abortion action but had two abortions herself! Even the grave and stern intonations of Morgan Freeman can't sell this drastic irrelevancy to a critical-minded viewer.

The irony is stunning. The Clinton's pushed hard for legislation that strips many of a male defendant's rights to information access in sexual harassment proceedings. Yet here are Clinton's supporters, assassinating Jones's character by (a) attacking the motivations of her attorney and (b) piecing together selected clips that make Jones look trashy and dimwitted. The message is clear: if Clinton is the alleged harasser, then the intelligence, appearance, and social status of the alleged victim are relevant.

The only relevant 'fact' presented in defense of Clinton is an allegation by David Brock that one of the state troopers supporting Jones stated her willingness to be Clinton's 'boyfriend.' One can only imagine the reaction of the producers of this film had David Brock produced testimony in support of Jones. How do you spell 'hearsay evidence by a source of doubtful credibility'?

Meanwhile, the serious claims of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick were mysteriously forgotten. Willey far more credible than Jones, presented very strong evidence. The testimony of any one of these women is enough to raise doubts about Clinton. But the conjunction of testimony by Jones, Broderick, and Willey suggests very strongly that Clinton has a problem controlling himself around powerless women in hotel rooms. But you would never have a glimmer of that watching this film, which tries to suggest that Clinton may have had a problem with personal morality, but nothing more. Contrast the treatment of Clinton with that of Clarence Thomas, convicted in the minds of Democrats on the basis of evidence from a single witness of questionable credibility. (Anita Hill, at the time a mediocre assistant professor at a second rate law school, is still collecting huge speaking fees lecturing about sexual harassment and women's rights.)

The film is particularly insulting in its continual use of a standard technique. Clinton appears with appropriately stirring background music (you know, the kind they play in movies when the military hero visits the Arlington cemetery). Then some marginal character is introduced. If the character supports the author's thesis, his/her credentials are overstated. If the character is one of the villains of the piece, questionable sources are immediately invoked to portray the character as (a) a yokel, (b) a scam artist, (c) sexually repressed, (d) a Republican, often all of the above.

That many of the sources are totally biased or highly questionable: (1) Carville, whose wacky antics on TV make Ann Coulter look like a reasoned moderate, (2) Brock, the former Republican attack dog who mysteriously "converted" just in time for this election campaign (and some huge book sales).

The 'meat' of the movie to me (and to several other reasonable reviewers) was the story of Susan McDougal, who claims that prosecutors tried to get her to lie about Clinton. Along the way, McDougal maligns her ex-husband, referring constantly to his mental instability, and claiming a mysteriously complete lack of knowledge about any of his darker dealings. McDougal gives her account with a calmness that suggests a heavy infusion of prozac. Clinton supporters see this calm, smiling demeanor as virtual proof of honesty and saintly integrity. Apparently none of these people has ever spent time talking with incarcerated female felons. Many of them affect the identical demeanor. Here is a startling fact: psychopaths make excellent liars! They are difficult to detect! My own view is that, rather than being the smoking gun in this grand conspiracy theory, McDougal is simply a loose end.

Wanted to like it. Didn't.

[spensercat · 6 November 2004]

This film has some major problems. One,it explains almost nothing. Even if you paid close attention in the '90s to the "deep-in-the-weeds" details of Whitewater and the pre-Monica sexual allegations against Clinton---this movie not only assumes you understood this stuff to begin with, but that you remember it too. Mistake. If you are looking for a movie that will shed some light on these subjects, this isn't it.

Second,the director constantly interrupts the storyline with flashes to clips of "gangsters" or "train crashes" which I assume are supposed to imply the dastardliness of the "hunters of the president". The impact is distracting to the viewer and trivializes the subject at hand. If a class of sophomores somewhere were asks to dramatize this subject, I have the feeling this is what they would come up with.

Weak effort.

a lucid snapshot of partisan politics

[video-attack-us · 10/10 · 6 November 2006]

A well-produced, well-paced and gripping documentary. I think that my favorite part of the DVD was actually the special feature, where Clinton spoke to the audience at one of the premiere showings. He deftly summarized some of the larger sweeping changes in politics since the founding of the nation. One key observation he made was that with the ending of the Cold War, there was no longer an outside enemy for our two-party system to unite against, and one result of this was that Conservative Republican side of the aisle turned on the Liberal Democrat side, demonizing them and branding them as the new enemy to replace the Eastern Block. It seems to me this newer trend has continued for the past 6 years after Clinton left office, even after the emergence of terrorism as a new outside threat. The proof is that the Democrats are now currently virtually locked out of the legislative process. We'll see if tomorrow's election changes the situation.

Valuable information obscured by heavy handed production

[bjackson98226 · 5/10 · 9 February 2007]

This is the best documentary yet on the vicious reichwing assault on Bill Clinton. The sound bites tell a powerful, disgusting story of the gang of thugs who had Clinton in their cross hairs from his earliest days in politics, with a bottomless pit of funding from Richard Mellon Scaiffe.

Unfortunately, the comments are obscured and sometimes literally covered up by the melodramatic, amateurish music and a horrible audio mix. The production values are pure Public Access TV at best.

Thus I give this important film a 10 for content and a one - since you don't have a zero - for production, an average of 5.

Shock revelation backed up by pure truth! Chilling.

[tahirjon6 · 5 October 2004]

This documentary revealed in a narrative style, how shockingly powerful the campaign to destroy Bill Clinton was.

The documentary ran like a thesis paper. Each statement was backed up by several facts, with at least one reputable political figure backing it up. There were also several confessions from well know republicans involved as well.

The narrative style backed up by Morgan Freeman's dark voice provided yet another bonus.

It truly provides an insight you've never seen. It changed my views on Clinton and how far certain political partys will go to get their way.

Music- 4 Out of 5 Narration- 5 Out of 5 Proof- 5 Out of 5

Overall- 9.5 Out of 10

Somewhere in here is an interesting story but it is jumbled and unhelpful in his infuriating documentary

[bob the moo · 11 December 2006]

How did we come to be here? That was a question asked during President Clinton's impeachment proceedings and this film sets out to answer it by stepping back in time to the start of his political rise. The documentary charts the many and varied attempts to undermine Bill Clinton as President and see him removed from office whether it be for murder, sex, corruption or just plain lying. Or at least that is the story it tries to tell but somehow it manages to take what should have been a fascinating thesis and turn it into a jumbled documentary that seems to think that old movie footage and comic asides are somehow going to help it build its case.

It is of course wrong because the film manages to somehow take this investigation and mostly f**k it up. The delivery is terrible from start to finish. The first and biggest problem is that it assumes that you know all about the subject, the people and the players and it starts with this knowledge a given. Now I appreciate that when you deal with a subject everyday, it is easy to forget that the majority of others don't live in your world but for the makers of a documentary it is quite unforgivable a mistake to make. The fast pace of delivery also means that once you are being left behind you're done for and I was barely coping with all the new names and events that I was supposedly meant to have read up on before the film. Of course as a liberal I'm meant to think this film is brilliant just because it criticises the right (which is the only reason I can figure for this film being so highly rated on IMDb).

The contributors are not all that impressive either. They all have plenty to say but the most important people are notable by their absence – understandable perhaps but damaging to a film so heavily reliant on interviews. The delivery issues didn't stop with the actual material though because I also had issue with the comic "film clips" used to illustrate points for no real reason. I can see that they were stealing the idea from Michael Moore but it doesn't sit in the middle of the mostly laugh-free material and thus only detracts from the film.

Overall then an interesting subject given shoddy treatment in a pretty poor documentary. It asks much of the viewer but offers little in return and, although Democrats will lap up any opportunity to see the Right taking a kicking but this alone does not make it a documentary worth seeing – not by a long shot.

Doesn't Quite Do It, But Definitely Worth Viewing

[jmatrixrenegade · 18 June 2004]

This movie is prime material for those on one or the other side of the issue, so it might be hard for its target audience (or those who would see it to refute it -- the tone of the first post leads one to infer that sort of thing occurs too). I personally thought President Clinton showed a lack of public integrity in his actions -- having an affair in the White House while an investigation is going on about his sex habits in AR, and stonewalling when it came out. I also had mixed feelings about some of his politics.

Still, we are talking a matter of degree here. It is hard to look at the facts, even without a Friend of Bill being involved as here, and not see the excesses. This film does a pretty good job at touching upon some of them (I have not read the book it was based on by a Arkansas reporter and Joe Conanson). It clearly is not neutral, though the situation makes it hard to be. One thing it doesn't do is totally exonerate Clinton. Various of the talking heads noted they were upset or worse about his whole Monica fiasco. It just thought it was not worthy of impeachment and victimization of a lot of little people. Whitewater was shown to be a whole lot of smoke no fire both by a report and the ind. counsel as well. Enron it was not.

Facts are shown. The movie starts off a bit fake with a lot of clips from old movies and a tone right out of a cut rate film noir movie to "sex" up the proceedings to keep our interest. It also hypes up the "conspiracy" angle a bit too much. This sort of heavyhandedness is ratcheted down some by the half way point, especially with the entrance of Susan McDougal, the heroine of the film. The portrayal is one-sided (troubling, even if she's totally innocent), but quite emotional and effective. The account of the pressure put on her to plea and her time in jail was particularly emotional.

So, mixed result -- there is a pretty strong case that abuses were carried out, good evidence that a lot of the parties against Clinton were suspicious and led more by hate and distaste than the facts, and some evidence of a lot of additional shadiness. It would have helped if the film interviewed someone to dispute Susan M., and likely such a p.o.v. was in the book. Overall, tries to prove too much, but there is enough "there" there to be worth watching to remember and get a flavor of the doings in AR.

The ten-year campaign to destroy Bill Clinton.

[film-critic · 4 October 2004]

This was a horrible film. I do not mean to come right out and say that, but it honestly is the most jumbled mess of ideas, conspiracies, and logic to ever be called a documentary. When I watch these types of films, I expect them to be similar to a college thesis paper. I want to see a riveting introduction, a powerful THESIS statement followed by some strong supportive points to back up the thesis, and finally a gut-wrenching conclusion. I want to sit in my couch and be able to pick my jaw off the floor and be in awe of the brilliance of the reporting. That was not the case with The Hunting of the President. I don't even think that filmmakers Nickolas Perry and Harry Thomason knew what they were doing. They had this idea, they had the clips and interviews done, now all they had to do was put the film together … and they failed.

To begin, this film assumes (and you know what happens when you assume) that you know most of the facts about White Water and the Lewinsky trial. It assumes that you know the key players; that you were one of the thousands glued to your televisions during all of this public embarrassment. Strangely, it even assumes that you know the people behind the scenes. That you know most of the points already, this film just gives you a platform to watch them without commercials. This is way too much assuming for me. I did not keep up with the Clinton debacle that much because it was his personal business. I was more interested about what our leader had to say about issues like … terrorism and foreign policy than worry about who he was sleeping with. If Hillary was willing to forgive him, then I think the American public should do the same. But … I digress, I promised I wouldn't go too far into personal beliefs. Nonetheless, this film does a horrible job of bringing the facts out into the open, and the little facts that they do they do not go too deeply into detail because they (again) assume that we already know it. This was my first issue with this documentary.

My second issue was their choice of filler. Throughout this film there were snippets of films and filmed moments to help bring some humor and levity to the thesis. While some may consider this a bandwagon jump onto what Michael Moore tries to do in his film, I saw it as something my college Professor would have called 'fluff'. These directors were avoiding, or trying to make light of a very powerful subject. If they were serious about this film, they would have either chosen to use different clips or dropped them all together. They were annoying and a waste of time … maybe it was symbolic for this film?

Next, was the time. This film ran just short of 90 minutes. That is not enough time to fully develop your points and make bold statements. Through some issues we were forced to run through to cover enough ground. I continually had to check my remote to make sure that it wasn't on fast forward. For a majority of this film, I felt as if I was running through a maze with some clippers. Whenever I came to a dead end in this maze, instead of backtracking and using logic to get me through the puzzle, I would just use the clippers to make my own path. That is exactly what this film did. When it got caught in a trap, it just clipped its way out and started a different path. Nothing was coherent, substantial, or knowledgeable in this film. I wanted meat, and all I got was soup.

There were only two points in this film that I found interesting. The first was everything that happened to Susan McDougal. It was sad and devastating to hear and see a woman who went through hell after doing nothing-wrong what so ever. This was one of the points that I thought the Republicans could not back out on. They wronged this woman, and owe her so much of her life.

The second point that was interesting to watch was when the media decided to release the impeachment trial on Clinton ironically on the same day as Clinton was to give a speech to the UN about … well … terrorism. I think that it is only now that we see that perhaps this man knew more about our future than our current President and wanted to be proactive instead of reactive.

Outside of these points, this was a pretty poor documentary even during this time when we, the film community, are being blasted by more and more political documentaries. It was obvious that they had plenty of money to spend on Morgan Freeman, I only wish they had budgeted more towards the basics of the film.

Overall, a waste of time.

Grade: * out of *****

The Andrew Johnson Story

[caspian1978 · 8 January 2005]

You just got to love it when history repeats itself. Much like the conspiracy (republican) that fell upon President Andrew Johnson, Clinton went through the same situation. It is funny how people try to recall what had happened back in 1998. Only a few years have pasted and people forget the history that we lived through with the trial and impeachment hearings. This documentary shows history alive. Whether you supported Clinton or not, you will accept the conspiracy to impeach / remove Bill Clinton from office. The power of the media and the power behind closed doors in Washington were equal. Politics was as dirty as ever. While the War Room opened people's eyes to how anyone can become President, The Hunt for the President has opened people's eyes to how no one is above the law. Well, maybe Kenneth Starr, wink wink.