The recent independent film release Weiner (2016) allows a glimpse into the peculiar mind of a man, Anthony Weiner, which is fascinating if you are something other than a politician. This fly-on-the-wall documentary of his NYC Mayoral run chronicles his ups – and then big downs – of his campaign. He begins the race as front-runner and becomes a victim of his own base urges, as new pictures from his Congressional career-ending sexting scandal emerge and the electorate reacts.
But he’s not a quitter. In the teeth of voter disapproval, Weiner continues his campaign, and we get to see most of that – his frustration and dissatisfaction with himself, his wife’s exhaustion, his attempts to address the issues of the City, rather than letting his private misadventures define his campaign. The film forces you to ask yourself questions: should this man’s private behavior be a factor in evaluating him for public office? Does the fact that his wife has forgiven him have an influence? How much of the voter’srejection of him had to do with his behavior, and how much was related to his marriage to a Muslim (he is Jewish), i.e., racism?
For a man with a lesser public service record, it might be hard to disentangle these questions, but he served 7 terms in the US House of Representatives, and the documentary makes clear that he had a largeimpact in embarrassing the GOP on several occasions. The debates for his mayoral contest make clear that he has passionately held positions and experience that could have benefited the City. It brings into sharp relief a real question of if, and how, a politician’s private life should influence their public position. An unrelated example of this was seen when recent House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s pedophilic actions came to light. When does information concerning private matters – and perhaps criminal, in Hastert’s case, although statute of limitations has run out – transition into the public sphere to become part of our evaluation criteria?
And what of the media? Is the invasive and vindictive behavior of at least one NYC publication appropriate for a supposed journalistic institution? Does that sort of crucible produce more honestpoliticians, or just those who are better at covering up? And the woman who came forward the last week of Weiner’s mayoral campaign with damningly explicit pictures – was she manipulated by anti-Weiner forces into destroying his campaign? Or did she really do this all on her own?
And then there’s the final question: Would you vote for him? There’s a certain grudging admiration that builds up during the film, for a flawed man who continues to fight even when the odds are longer than can be measured, a man who can take personal attacks and return them in a substantive manner, such as the incident in which he says, “Yes, it’s your right to say I shouldn’t be running – but it’s NOT your right to take away the opportunity for others to vote for me!”
The documentary surprises not in the mistakes made by Anthony Weiner. We know what these are. The surprise comes in the subtle questions raised to the viewer; questions about forgiveness, questions about when enough public castigation is enough, questions about whether a man’s flaws should be all that defines him. And questions about whether a person’s good ideas should be discounted because of his bad actions.
The film has a lot going for it. It’s definitely worth your time to see.
