by Susan Stilley
During the recent Republican debate in South Carolina, audiences caught a glimpse of Fred Thompson which has been wholly missing on the campaign trail. He seemed stronger, more confident and while ‘eloquent’ may be a bit of a stretch, he had several clever turn of phrases. His speech wasn’t peppered with the “uh, oh, well, hmm, uh’s” that usually makes listening to him for more than five minutes so maddening. They weren’t completely eliminated, but at least I wasn’t sitting on the edge of the sofa, shouting at the T.V. screen, “Just spit it out already!
So what gives? This appears to be the Fred all the Fredheads (who haven’t already jumped ship) have been pining for. Did Fred finally ‘get his groove back’?
Not exactly. To ‘get one’s groove back’, one has to have once had a groove. Evidence of any prior groove for Mr. Thompson is sorely lacking. Upon entering the race, he has appeared disinterested, uninspiring, fumbling for words and frankly, haggard.
How then do we explain the new and improved Fred of the recent debate? Easy. Fred simply returned to something he knows how to do very well.
He returned to acting.
Since the beginning, Thompson’s campaign style displayed a lethargic, take-me-as-I-am attitude and his low standing in the polls reflected that voters weren’t ‘taking him’ at all. What voters really wanted was Arthur Branch (the character he portrays on Law and Order), as political analyst Dick Morris surmised early on. We wanted to be captivated by a leader who oozed strength and decisiveness. We wanted a capable captain. We wanted to go on The Hunt For Red October.
I believe Thompson realized (or perhaps his politically savvy wife, Jeri, realized) this disconnect and made the calculated decision that even if Fred himself was not ‘presidential’, he could play the part of someone presidential. After all, he has played the president on the silver screen. With the right script and prior actor-motivation, surely he could tackle this role easily enough. The key was to always remember he was no longer himself, he was playing a character.
The actor, Fred Thompson, made his debut on the South Carolina debate stage. This was his premiere. He had his script in hand. One can almost hear the director’s slate snap shut. “The President, Take One….ACTION!” Fred awaited his cue and when he sensed his opening, launched into a carefully crafted ninety second speech, a tirade against Governor Mike Huckabee. Gone were the constant ‘uh’s’. He said his dialog with precision, no doubt due to much practice in front of the bathroom mirror.
No matter that his prepared rant was riddled with inaccuracies concerning Huckabee. Most viewers will not bother researching Huckabee’s actual statements and positions on the issues. The real goal of Fred’s performance was to come across as a tough talking leader. I am Reagan, hear me roar.
Unfortunately for Mr. Thompson, his performance is more likely to garner a nomination from the Golden Globe folks, rather than the Republican party. I suspect that most voters find Mr. Thompson a bit paradoxical. We thought we knew him from his Hollywood persona. Then he enticed us with his tough talking, cigar chomping, anti-Michael Moore video. Again, the right make-up and lighting, script, props, and endless takes does work wonders to craft one’s image.
Though he tried to avoid it as long as possible, eventually Fred had to jump in the game for real. That is when his problems began. That is when he suffered what I term the, Singin’ In The Rain effect. So devastating has this effect been on Fred Thompson’s image, that it is doubtful his last debate performance will enable him to recover. Let me explain.
In the classic movie musical, Singin’ In The Rain, the character, Lina Lamont is a beautiful, blonde, silent film star. She is paired with Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and together they make Hollywood history. Problems arise with the innovation of the ‘talkies’ and especially musicals. Poor Lina Lamont has a whiny, screeching voice, a cross between Roseanne and Diane Reames. She can’t even talk, let alone sing.
To protect their interests, the studio brings in Don’s love interest, Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds) to be the dubbed voice of Lina Lamont. Kathy is not given screen credit so audiences assume Lina has a cultured, beautiful voice to match her physical allure. All is well until Lina tires of constantly being hushed up by the studio heads. At a premiere, she decides to strut on stage and address her adoring fans. As she speaks, the crowd winces, shakes their head and starts to boo.
To appease the unruly audience a microphone is quickly placed on stage and Lina Lamont lip syncs Singin’ In The Rain while Kathy Selden does the real singing at a microphone behind the curtain .
The crowd relaxes, smiles, enjoys the music, happy to have their ‘star’ back. Then Gene Kelly and friends begin raising the curtain and the jig is up. Kathy Selden is revealed as the real talent and the carefully crafted Lina Lamont image is gone.
Fred Thompson suffered the Singin’ In The Rain effect when he put himself forth as a presidential candidate without the Hollywood type of prep and image crafting he needed. Many voters are aware that he was a senator for eight years (a period in which little of the legislation he was involved in actually made it into law), that he had also worked as an attorney and lobbyist, but it was his ‘movie star’ appeal that caused the real buzz. Everyone thought they knew who Thompson was based on the characters he has played. When he hit the trail and didn’t live up to expectations, the reaction was similar to the audience for Lina Lamont when she spoke in her real voice; lots of wincing and shaking of heads.
At the last debate, Fred pulled off what was equivalent to Lina breaking into song on stage and pleasing the fans, happy to have their ‘star’ back. The question is, how long can it last? When will the curtain go up, revealing the real Fred Thompson again, not the consummate actor playing his role? Or have most of the fans already left the theatre, disillusioned?
Someone might object that Reagan also used his acting experience as president. Without question. The difference is that the Great Communicator had a natural gift for oratory which flowed from the passion of big ideas. Reagan had a unique gift for inspiration which he was able to hone to an art form over the course of his two terms of Governor of California.
I believe Thompson to be a good man and perhaps he has big ideas too. Perhaps if he were to become a governor he would have opportunity to develop those leadership skills, to gain the necessary stature of a Chief Executive, to tap into a genuine charisma of his own and develop the proper language to cast his vision.
There is a reason we tend to choose governors over senators. It usually takes the experience of actually running a government, making hard decisions, communicating with the citizens of your state to develop that hard-to-define aura of leadership so crucial to gaining the trust of the American people for the highest office in the land.
I believe Fred Thompson has given too many mixed signals about his real identity, for him to be chosen for the Republican nomination. Even at his best, there is too much of a, “I’m ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille” aspect to Fred’s performance. Too much unease from primary voters about the curtain being raised, not knowing which Fred Thompson persona will be standing on the stage.
