The bland font and chilling stare of the “Melania” poster haunts theaters. Image courtesy of NPR.
HARRISON PRYOR | STAFF REPORTER | hrpryor@butler.edu
“Film Fanatics” explores Hollywood’s recent releases, cherished classics and everything in between. These thought-provoking reviews invite fresh perspectives and weigh whether a film deserves attention — or if it is best left in the past. Read on to find out what our writers think of this week’s film.
The public eye rarely stops at famous people themselves. Families and friends are always subject to scrutiny from the masses, no matter what their connection to fame does for them. Some join their parents in their respective industries while others use their name to launch other careers. This is mostly the case for musicians and actors, but what happens when the families of politicians begin doing the same thing?
Melania Trump was a successful model well before marrying now-President Donald Trump, but the name of one of the richest men in the world certainly gave her an extra push. Though she continued modeling, Melania’s life eventually became centered around her husband’s political pursuits to the point of organizing his second inauguration.
The second inauguration was the subject of the First Lady’s self-titled documentary following the 20 days leading up to the event. Directed by Brett Ratner of “Rush Hour” fame and Epstein files infamy, “Melania” is little more than a montage of the leading lady walking into — and occasionally out of — various vehicles and rooms.
Criticism and praise of the documentary come from two predictable groups: one side believes it is just vapid propaganda meant to act as a feature-length ad for the Trump family, and the other believes it is a piece of applause-worthy cinema led by the most stunning First Lady to ever grace the White House. Guessing the political affiliations of each group is not rocket science.
The first group of naysayers is right. “Melania” is pro-Trump family propaganda, pitched and executive produced by the star herself, and it offers very little of the promised insight into the inner workings of her life and marriage.
The second group of hardcore fans is also right. The film is genuinely shot well, and the roughly $80 million budget — half of which was spent on marketing — shows itself in the extensive music licensing and on-location filming.
Lecturer of political science Ryan Daugherty expressed that the very existence of this documentary speaks volumes about the current administration.
“This feels like a cash grab [more than] something that the public was demanding or anything,” Daugherty said. “There’s maybe an interesting documentary or interesting thing to say here, but by the sounds of it, the director — who also has a problematic past — is just being a sycophant, essentially. [He’s] just letting Melania direct the documentary. All documentaries [are] propaganda to an extent, or [at least] all documentaries do have a direction. They have to have a point of view, but [‘Melania’] seems like just propaganda. It’s another major payout for the Trumps.”
Is that all this movie is? Is “Melania” a well-made film with bad intentions? There has to be more to the most expensive documentary ever made. Every review says the same two opposing things about whether it is propaganda or cinema, and the audience were hoping to have a more nuanced take. The truth is that there is no nuanced take. “Melania” really is a well-made film with bad intentions.
The disproportionate Rotten Tomatoes scores only cement the documentary’s legacy as a very expensive vanity project. With a critic score barely grazing double digits and a nearly perfect audience score, “Melania” almost certainly has bots swarming to its defense. Though Rotten Tomatoes has denied these claims, the sheer volume of first-time reviewers with rote praise is a clear indicator of some sort of foul play, be it bots or rabid fans.
“Melania” raises a bigger question than if the president’s wife should get a documentary about herself. The truly important thing to ask is whether or not any family member of any politician should have the amount of sway to do so. Further, should the public even know as much as it does about these families?
Joseph Pruss, a junior strategic communication major whose father, Tom Pruss, is running to be Ohio’s Secretary of State, believes that political families act as a window to the politicians themselves.
“As we’ve seen with the Hunter Biden case, the actions of the children reflect the actions of the parents,” Pruss said. “It’s mostly [about] political sides [and casting] doubt on people’s opponents. You [could] say, ‘My opponent’s child is doing something that’s abnormal, then obviously it’s a learned behavior,’ but that’s because most people don’t separate the child from the parent.”
The lives of politicians’ families have always been incredibly public. Some have been made known while others have made themselves known, and no amount of effort will make them truly private people. The simple truth is that the public should only know what the families themselves show, but that will never stop the publicity train. Some, like Melania Trump, embrace and welcome it, perhaps to an overzealous degree. Will the Trump children follow suit?
