Comments on: Game Change http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:05:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1337481 Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:33:48 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20566#comment-1337481 Invisible Man: good questions. My comments were an analysis of the filmic representation of the McCain campaign, not an analysis of the actual campaign. I thought the filmmakers did a good job of drawing the viewer into the story, and making Palin a caricature of herself (which admittedly was probably hard to avoid!) would not have served their goals as filmmakers. Doubtlessly, they wanted to ensure the largest audience possible, which means alienating neither the Palin fans nor her critics. The movie gives both factions a little of what they’re looking for, as well as challenges their views, I think.

Palin-the-person is not a sympathetic character, but Palin-in-the-movie needed to be at least somewhat sympathetic.

]]>
By: Invisible Man http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1337452 Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:55:57 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20566#comment-1337452 This sounds totally cool, but I don’t think I could take even watching an actor impersonating Palin for any extended amount of time so I’d much rather read a long article about it in the New Yorker or Vanity Fair.

O.k. scratch that, upon further reflection, I wonder is this about white liberals unconsciously protecting the status quo? Think about it, what does it mean to portray Palin as “sympathetic” and what does it mean to engage this debate? You say she “knew” she was in over here head, yet she bucked McCain publicly several times to appeal to her “base”, this is a person who seemed power drunk and she also had no problem expanding the big top during the circus to include her family, where as other candidates tightly scripted their family under the public eye.

I suggest that liberals (in these drastically changing/ scary times) consider not opening up new veins of sympathy for every body and instead concentrate on empowering those who truly need it, unless the point is not to go so deep?

]]>
By: Tenured Radical http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1334668 Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:29:52 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20566#comment-1334668 I also thought that, particularly when you compare the fictional portrayal to the real-life drama of the most recent GOP candidate’s campaign, there is a kernel of analysis about what the Republicans do not get: a political campaign is not a corporate campaign.

]]>
By: Sweet Sue http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1331420 Fri, 08 Feb 2013 01:54:19 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20566#comment-1331420 I’ll never forgive the two bastards who wrote “Game Change.” They really should rot in hell for their vicious portrayal of Elizabeth Edwards, a betrayed wife who was dying of cancer.
The book was a compliation of tales told out of school by disgruntled employees of the Edwards, Clinton and McCain campaigns.
Of course, the Obamas cured the sick and raised the dead.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1331176 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:18:46 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20566#comment-1331176 I know! But that’s what was so deviously compelling about the movie: the viewer gets sucked into rooting for the McCain campaign.

I thought Ed Harris was pretty good at impersonating the famously foul-mouthed McCain.

]]>
By: undinenotofgeneralinterest http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1330997 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:04:27 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20566#comment-1330997 The “small-town politician” part came out in her laser-like focus on what the Wasilla Gazette or whatever it is was saying about her campaign. I thought it was sympathetic but reasonably accurate, which is what Steve Schmidt (the Woody Harrelson character) said when the movie came out. That said, by the time of his big speech to her at the end when she’s trying to muscle her way onto the stage and give a VP concession speech, you wanted to yell “Stop her!” at the television.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1330852 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:28:55 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20566#comment-1330852 I hear what you’re saying, CPP. Heilemann I trust more, but the truth is that the Palin pick was such a debacle that there were plenty of insiders willing to dish, and their was a great deal of convergence in their stories. (The people who talked to reporters were clearly self-interested, but that doesn’t mean that they were wrong in all cases!)

I haven’t read the book, but I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has if the movie’s spin seems notably different from the book, esp. if they think the book was notably less sympathetic/more scathing towards Palin.

]]>
By: Comradde PhysioProffe http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1330811 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:07:09 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20566#comment-1330811 Mark Halperin is far from a reliable narrator of *anything*, so I would be very wary of assigning truth value to anything depicted in the book.

]]>
By: Kathie http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1330738 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:04:57 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20566#comment-1330738 My son is a total politics junky and he convinced me to watch this film, which I would have studiously avoided otherwise, just because I try to avoid anything related to Palin. And I agree, it is very well done, properly sympathetic, but does not give her a pass in any way. Julianne Moore did a great job, as was recognized when she won an Emmy for that role.

]]>
By: Indyanna http://www.historiann.com/2013/02/07/game-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1330682 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:37:12 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20566#comment-1330682 What?!? The Republicans ran a campaign that year? Things were so awesomely transformational and time/space/curve-bending in the other party that I sort of just blissed out in April and lost track of it all. In truth, I don’t think I would have watched. Although I’m a product of the formative era of the campaign bio, from Theodore White to Joe McGuinis to Hunter S. Thompson, I don’t really get too much into political retrospective. I’m still trying to raise seed money for a Thompsonesque documentary on the assassination of the Hon’b’le Danvers Osborn, Bart., in New York in 1753. It’s shovel-ready and take-it-to-Sundance hot, save for the aforementioned seed money.

]]>