Watch Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer For Free

Perfect cast and a good story

Captivating movie !

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

A Disappointing Continuation

An interesting take on a potential "other side" to the well known story of the NY Governor and the call girl.With one exception (a stand in for a hooker), all the people are real and the film is unscripted. It's a very good portrayal of NY politics. Most of the people are certainly putting a bit of their own spin on what they say (it is politics, after all); but, some, like Joe Bruno, tell it like it is with no punches pulled.I am originally from upstate NY and can tell you that the Albany political scene is much the same as it is portrayed in the film. Lots of politicians, mostly followers; but, there are a few leaders who shake up the ship as Joe Bruno does in the film.Well worth seeing, especially if you're a political junkie.

This is not a movie about a client of prostitution, the title notwithstanding. Obviously the title was chosen to "sell" the documentary, and my guess is that it has failed in its purpose. This is a truly terrific film about power politics. If you don't know much about the inner workings of government at the highest levels, this movie will go a long way to educate you. If you do know, this will likely confirm your experience. It is also hugely instructive about the brilliant Eliot Spitzer who was and is clearly dedicated to furthering the public good. The loss of his public service is a huge loss for American consumers. His responses to questions about his foolish indiscretions are forthright; that doesn't mean he fully understands why he did what he did-- who can? People are imperfect. They goof up at the worst possible times. The important questions that the film raises and that go unanswered have to do with how, in a country that processes millions of checks and money orders each month, were his (for $10,000 or maybe less) "singled out" for investigation? =

They say life is stranger than fiction, and no place is that more evident than in New York City, the greed capital of the World.New York City, as one who has just left after 14 years may be a great place to visit, but you would never want to live there. For those who walked out of "The Matrix", when it was cutting edge and told a story of a world where people lived in a fiction, and couldn't distinguish reality, it seemed a mere conceit, a great means of storytelling. For those of us who have never lost our objectivity, which means we came to NYC with minds open, impervious to the assault on logic and normality that makes this city the real life Matrix, this Morality tale in which a well-intentioned and flawed man is run out of town by the bankers and the money marketeers, is business as usual.And make no mistake about that that. New York City is a corporate state and corporate town. It is Corporate Central, and if you think the people that wreaked havoc with the average American with AIG , which is New York based, and the home of greed and financial control by CORPORATISTS, will shuffle off gently into that good night, then you don't understand corporate politics.It is difficult to look at a calendar and note it is 2010, not 1692. You would think the sexual peccadilloes of a government official, compared to lying to the public, or initiating a war to benefit the Corporate elite, would pale in comparison, but this movie makes it clear that Wall Street , the true power of this Country, will not be muted or restrained or bullied by any person with the integrity to conduct that fight. Eliot Spitzer isn't Michael Moore, but he did crack down on those who were extracting money from the middle class, and tried to stop the power elite.For the most part I think Spitzer was 80% candid, which is more than enough to understand him in complete context. More clear were his adversaries, and the political gain they would receive by removing this pesky governor who was raining on the usual business as usual Wall Street Way.Unless you are some sort of theological hypocrite, this movie frames clearly the singular unimportance of and sexcapades that have existed in politics as far back as Washington, documented with Lincoln, and certainly contemporaries in FDR, JFK, and Clinton. I don't care what my elected officials do in the bedroom, and think the hypocrisy of the rabid right is on full display here, with their almost laughable preoccupation with legislating morality, all the while being the true authors of wars, pain, and misery, and looking to take down anyone or thing which threatens their domination and control. In that sense, this movie is a cautionary, once again, in which an inspired documentary maker tries to get the public to look beyond the facts as Fox would report it, and THINK about the MOTIVES of the people who were so intent on bringing this person down.Why is this important? People need to regain their equilibrium and see the reality hiding in plain site. Wake up before you're just like the New Yorkers who see no problem with paying $2800 for a one bedroom apartment, on a street with no trees, $3.50 for a thimble of orange juice, and believe it is normal. I think having lived there, and come back from Oz, this story is a sad one, not only because it shows the strength of corporate power, but the idiocy of a manipulated and malleable people, who are but lambs and sheep to be led to slaughter.Wake up everyone, especially New Yorkers.

I don't go to any movie as a first attempt to "learn" about "current events" or history. I make it an ongoing point to learn about the evolution of facts on any topic that interests me through multiple sources, all of which I try to double-check and cross-reference, until my doubts about veracity are reasonably satisfied. That can still leave matters unresolved, especially when compelling evidence is stacked up on the sides of both thesis and antithesis.When I see "documentaries," it's part of challenging my current take on which way I believe the weight of truths and contradictions are tipping. The interpretative and editorial spin of any given documentary becomes a strength, and not a weakness, in this context. Many times, I come away with my own understanding of things further honed. Sometimes, I find myself completely reversed.I thought long and hard before I went to see C9. I've much respect for Alex Gibney's previous work; but I wondered whether or not seeing C9 could further inform and/or change anything I knew and opined about Spitzer.I was, and still am, deeply disappointed over the personal failings of the disgraced former Governor. I know that White Collar crime exists and that the pervasiveness of it, especially today, is not strictly a matter of a handful of Machiavellian masterminds. Broken assumptions, broken systems and failures of regulation (on many levels) are also necessary for the few to be able to relentlessly plunder the many. It is a cancer that must be fought.Eliot Spitzer's fall from grace was unforgivable, in my mind, not just because of the damage he wreaked upon himself and his family, but because of the huge setbacks that we have all suffered in the "war" against White Collar crime in the US. Spitzer was the hard-and-fast hitting Sheriff of Wall Street and a Crusader for Main Street. He never took a bribe, but he still managed to find a spectacular way to violate the public's trust while in office. Spitzer took one huge measure of personal responsibility by resigning from office; but he also created a huge political vacuum for the sorely needed fight against ongoing crimes in high places. I also knew that outrage toward Spitzer was the largest part of what I felt, going in, and that outrage creates its own blindspots.So, I stood under an umbrella, in light rain, for an hour, to see this film and I am very glad that I did. The facts presented in C9 pertaining to Spitzer's record of public service were well presented and jibed with what I already knew. But there is still special value in actually seeing the major adversarial players as they tell their own stories.Gibney pulls off a number of compelling interviews, not just with Spitzer (who was interviewed on four different occasions), but also with some former aides. Spitzer is allowed to evade specifically answering certain questions (including campaign finances), but the expression on his face and in his eyes, in those same moments, still spoke volumes to me.There's also a rogues gallery of the powerful enemies, in finance and in government (state and Federal), that Spitzer made over the course of his career in office. Several of these players get as much individual talk time as Spitzer.The middle part of the film is a whodunit-style look at how the sexual scandal came into fruition. Here's where the tag line, "You don't know the real story," comes into play. The net effect of this is to desensationalize just about everything that print and television "news" got (mostly) wrong, which is no small order.The infamous Ashley Dupree never participates in an interview for Gibney, although she still manages to get some screen/blab time in. It turns out that she very likely only had a one night stand with Spitzer.The ongoing liaison that Spitzer came to seek out through the Emperors' Club was with an entirely different "escort." While "Angelina" does not consent to be filmed (she's now a day trader and no longer in her former line of work), Angelina does agree to be interviewed. Gibney uses an actress to read/interpret Ashley's portion of the transcript. (The only thing that I disagree with about the execution of this is that Gibney does not make it clear, from the onset, that it's an actress standing in for Ashley on camera.) C9 created a new context for me, in which to re-think much of what I already knew.Spitzer is by no means let off-the-hook for literally screwing around, but the media creation is brought several notches down from shining knight and a few notches up from pariah.I was once again reminded of all of the good that Eliot Spitzer and his assembled associates managed to accomplish while in office. Some of the strategic and tactical mistakes were made clearer, too.Important questions are raised about the scandal, itself. How did the FBI come to investigate the Emperor's Club? How did a prostitution and money laundering investigation come to focus on the Mann Act and the interstate transport of women (who were of majority age and not by any stretch of the imagination "white slaves") to provide prostitution services? Who were the other clients of the Emperors' Club? Why were there so many investigative leaks to the press pointing specifically in the direction of Spitzer? Why not anyone else? As a result of seeing C9, my own view of Spitzer has become better tempered and from that improved vantage point useful new questions arise.If we set aside the sex scandal, can we say that Spitzer's official conduct in office, as AG and governor, was ends-and-means right or wrong? A handful of BadGuys(TM) were brought down, but there are many more undaunted. Has anyone else picked up Spitzer's mantle? Where are his replacements?