'Dark money' contributions, made possible by the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, flood modern American elections—but Montana is showing Washington D.C. how to solve the problem of unlimited anonymous money in politics.
The story of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which opened the spigots of campaign cash, has been told before. But Reed weaves it into a larger narrative in which it is simply one of the steps in the unraveling of modern campaign-finance laws.
In contrast to the very personal “Prodigal Sons,” Reed’s sophomore feature is straightforward reportage, telling a complex, multi-issue story with a large number of players, in admirably cogent terms.
This is an informative film that deals up its facts in a sober, linear fashion. This is salutary in that it avoids sensationalism that might lead to accusations of conspiracy-theory mongering. But it also has the effect of making the film feel a little dry.
Ms. Reed has taken on a vital story in Dark Money, which is why it’s frustrating that her storytelling isn’t better. Some introductory text or explanatory narration would have better helped historically ground viewers, who need to juggle a lot of information.
As Ravel puts it, the disproportionate influence of money on elections isn’t a Democratic or Republican problem, but a “gateway issue to every other issue you might care about.” Dark Money makes the case, as well as any film can, that she’s pretty much right on the money.
WHAT ARE PEOPLE SAYING?
Be the first to comment about this film.
WHAT ARE CRITICS SAYING?
Film Journal International by Chris Barsanti
The Film Stage by Dan Mecca
Variety by Dennis Harvey
Philadelphia Daily News by Gary Thompson
RogerEbert.com by Glenn Kenny
Slant Magazine by Keith Watson
Entertainment Weekly by Leah Greenblatt
The New York Times by Manohla Dargis
Washington Post by Michael O'Sullivan
The Hollywood Reporter by Todd McCarthy