The curious thing about the Melania film, curious in the way a bruise is curious when pressed, is not whether it succeeds artistically or even ethically but that it doesn’t need to. Its financial fate feels preordained not because it is good but because it is useful. This is cinema as talisman, less an act of storytelling than an object of devotion. For a certain audience, mainly MAGA loyalists and evangelical women who have long perfected the art of reconciling piety with power, it is a must-see not despite its flaws but because of them.
Let’s dispense with the obvious suspicions first. The murmurs about Bezos indirect bribery and soft-focus oligarchic indulgence hang over the film like a cheap chandelier, visible, gaudy and impossible to ignore, yet ultimately irrelevant to the experience. Even if the film were entirely self-funded and sainted by monks it would still land where it lands. Its problem is not who might have paid for it but what it reveals, almost accidentally, about the woman at its center and the political theology she represents.
Critics have not been kind and rightly so. The film is stiff, poorly paced, emotionally vacant. Scenes unfold like press releases given human form, each one designed to reassure rather than interrogate. But to focus on its technical inadequacies is to miss the deeper unease it provokes. This is not merely a bad film; it is a revealing one. In its chilliness, in its relentless emotional vacancy, it offers an inadvertent portrait of a First Lady who is not misunderstood or misrepresented but perfectly captured.
Melania Trump has always been an enigma, though not in the romantic sense that journalists once hoped. The film leans heavily into this mythology of mystery, her silence, her reserve, her supposed inner life but what it ends up portraying is not depth, only absence. The camera lingers, waiting for warmth, for contradiction, for moral tension. None arrives. Instead, we are given composure without compassion, elegance without empathy, distance elevated to virtue.
This might have been compelling if the film were self-aware. But it isn’t. It treats Melania’s emotional frost as evidence of dignity, her detachment as strength. In doing so, it unwittingly aligns her with the very qualities that define her husband’s political persona, cruelty reframed as toughness, corruption disguised as pragmatism, indifference elevated to strategy. The apple, it turns out, did not fall far from the gold-plated tree.
There is a scene, one of many, that attempts to humanize her through suffering, suggesting that she, too, is a victim of circumstance, of a husband too loud, a role too demanding. But the film never grapples with the obvious rejoinder, that power, even when reluctantly worn, is still power. Melania is not portrayed as someone trapped within a system she opposes but as someone who has made peace with it, benefiting quietly while others bear the cost noisily.
This is where the film’s appeal to its core audience becomes clear. For evangelical women in particular Melania represents a familiar archetype, the virtuous bystander, morally intact not because she resists wrongdoing but because she does not acknowledge it. Silence becomes sanctity. Endurance becomes righteousness. In this framework, one need not challenge cruelty to remain pure; one need only stand beside it gracefully.
Financially this is a brilliant calculation. The film flatters its audience by affirming what they already believe, that proximity to power absolves rather than implicates, that elegance can substitute for ethics, that a woman’s quietness is proof of her goodness. It asks nothing of the viewer except loyalty and loyalty, in this political ecosystem, is always rewarded.
Yet for viewers outside this circle, the film is chilling in a different way. Not because it shocks but because it normalizes. It presents corruption without consequence, cruelty without reflection and emotional vacancy as aspirational. In doing so, it becomes less a biography than a mirror, one that reflects a political moment in which moral emptiness is no longer a scandal, but a brand.
In the end, the Melania film succeeds not by transcending politics but by embodying them. It is cold because it means to be. It is hollow because hollowness is the point. And it will make money because it reassures its audience that nothing, neither empathy nor accountability, is truly required of those who stand close enough to power. That may not be cinema at its best but it is propaganda at its most honest
No comments:
Post a Comment