The Electoral High School

by Katrina Bertz

The best way to understand the film Election is to look at the novel of the same name that it was based on. The novel was written in 1992, during the election between Republican candidate George Bush Sr., Democratic candidate Bill Clinton and Independent Ross Perot. It was the first time in many years that an independent candidate had gained so much of a following that they stood a chance in the presidency. Perot’s platform was very different from both the Democrats and Republicans. His outsider status resonated with many disillusioned Americans. He and Bush, however eventually lost out to Clinton. So, although the film was released in 1999, its theme was related to the 1992 election. Through this perspective, we can now see the parallels employed in the film.

Because this film was not meant to be a very big, box-office film, the filmmakers had an opportunity to make the movie more of a dark comedy. King says that “satire of a sharply political nature is more likely to be offered as a niche-audience product than as the stuff of enormous box-office expectations,” (King p.94). While Election certainly is meant to satirize the political machine in America, it also spends a lot of time satirizing the dynamics of American suburbia and its high schools therein. 
          
The characters of Tracey, Paul and Tammy each represent an archetypical high school student; the over-achiever, the dumb jock and the outcast, respectively. The film examines common stereotypes and how they are often incorrect. At first glance, Tracey is seen as an insufferable, yet intelligent go-getter. It isn’t until the story digs deeper that it is revealed how manipulative she truly is. After confessing to her mother that she had an affair with one of her teachers, his life is essentially ruined. She loses herself momentarily and destroys all of Paul’s posters, only to allow Tammy to take the fall. This is all indicative of someone who is willing to do anything to get what they want, not that uncommon in most politicians. It also shows the dirty side of living in a small town with small town ideologies. King claims, “Varying stances are also found in Hollywood satires that focus on broader areas of American life, especially that of the well-heeled middle class suburban milieu,” (King p.106). And this can be seen throughout the film.
          
The most obvious would be the character of Jim McAllister (played by Matthew Broderick) and what makes the film so bitingly funny is what happens to him. This character has been established as the good guy. He has a loving wife, a good job and is genuinely well-liked by his students. Over the course of the student council election, however his entire life is ruined by a series of unfortunate, but hilarious events. He doesn’t want Tracey to win the election, so he gets Paul to run. He accuses Tracey of destroying the posters and she throws his skeletons (infertility) in his face before threatening him. Then Mr McAllister is seduced by his best friend’s wife, only to discover that she felt remorse and told his wife. He also gets stung by a bee on the eyelid and is eventually fired for getting caught throwing away two of Tracey’s votes. The best part about all of this is that everything that happens to him happens because of what he did. So, even though he is being punished for things he did to himself, we still feel bad for the pathetic, little man. 
          
He represents the average American. We all are aware of the corruption and ridiculousness of elections, however it is nearly impossible to do anything about it. And if we try to change it in our favor, the politicians manage to turn it around and make our situations worse than before. What makes this film satirical and comical is that it is an exercise in futility. We all knew that Tracey was going to win, but McAllister trying to stop her and failing horribly just made it hilarious. It reminds the audience of how most of feel during an election year, which is exactly what it was meant to do. 


King, Geoff. Film Comedy. Columbia University Press. New York. 2002. Print.