• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Game Change: Fair and balanced?

Maybe the movie being made is partly the result of SP quitting Alaska politics to become a national media star and make big money. If she had gone back to Alaska and just faded away from national consciousness then would there be a big enough audience for this movie to justify it being made?
 
Tricky said:
I'm getting ready to watch "Game Change", the dramatazation that focuses on Sarah Palin's part of the last election. I've read conflicting reports on its accuracy and so I'm going to be watching it with a critical eye. Hope some of you political junkies do too, and we'll compare notes afterward.
Click to expand...

Why? He hired an idiot as his vp. What's the mystery?

If'n I was gonna watch a Julian Moore movie I'd watch Chloe and fast forward to the part where Amanda Seyfried makes love, sweet love to her.
 
I read the book and watched the movie. I thought Sarah came off as sympathetic at times but unsympathetic more often. I felt sorry for her in a few places, but most of the time, she seemed a spoilt little girl. I really hope the scene where they explained Germany and WWII to her was made up.

I felt most sorry for Nicole Wallace, especially when she admits near the end that she couldn't vote.
 
Lisa Simpson said:
I read the book and watched the movie. I thought Sarah came off as sympathetic at times but unsympathetic more often. I felt sorry for her in a few places, but most of the time, she seemed a spoilt little girl. I really hope the scene where they explained Germany and WWII to her was made up.

I felt most sorry for Nicole Wallace, especially when she admits near the end that she couldn't vote.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen it yet. But I did watch the clip where Schmidt explains the historic significance of that concession speech. If true I have great respect for Schmidt.

Steve Schmidt calls ‘Game Change’ ‘very accurate’ [VIDEO]

​
 
Richard Cohen's take:

At some point while watching HBO’s absolutely smashing (and terrifying) movie “Game Change,” it occurred to me that Sarah Palin has ruined America. The movie has been scalloped out of the book by the same name and focuses on Palin, rather than on the entire 2008 presidential campaign. The decision to do so was absolutely correct. With her selection as John McCain’s running mate, American politics lost its way — and maybe its mind as well.

The movie portrays Palin as an ignoramus. She did not know that Queen Elizabeth II does not run the British government, and she did not know that North and South Korea are different countries. She seemed not to have heard of the Federal Reserve. She called Joe Biden “O’Biden” and she thought America went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein, not al-Qaeda, had attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. Not only did she know little, but she was determinately incurious and supremely smug in her ignorance.

At the same time, she was a liar. In the movie, she was called exactly that by McCain’s campaign chief, Steve Schmidt, who came to realize — a bit late in the game — that one of Palin’s great talents was to deny the truth. When confronted, she simply shuts down — petulant, child-like — and then sulks off.

Palin objects to this characterization — as does McCain — but the movie has been endorsed by too many of Palin’s top campaign aides to put its veracity in doubt.
Click to expand...
 
RandFan said:
I don't need to qualify that. I believe it is true and I have great respect for the man period.
Click to expand...

This.^^^^

I love to hear him speak, seems like a man of great integrity. He'd make a terrific senator. I just bought the book for my Kindle. It is very well written. So far, extremely educational, and I have not gotten to the election yet.

I also tried Nicole Wallace's two books and didn't care for her style.j

ETA: I'm staying up too late, but "Game Change" is a fun read. Can't put it down. I still love good ol' Bill and Hillary. I wish I could copy and paste some passages. Good stuff. Chapter 3 and, wow!
Must.....stop.....living ....in the past.
 
Last edited:
I have not ready the book, but enjoyed the movie.

To my mind Palin was portrayed much more sympathetically than I previously thought of her (although that probably says more about my preconceptions then of her). I found it intriguing how she was portrayed as both a perpetrator and victim in creating her public image.

As victim, she clearly was completely unprepared for the national stage and had no business playing at that level. She had know way of knowing that but McCain's advisors did, but completely dropped the ball.

As perpetrator, she also started to really enjoy the celebrity and verged on megalomania towards the end.

The movie portrayed her as a great mouthpiece and public speaker when she was able to memorize a speech in advance, but clearly had neither the knowledge base nor the intellectual ability to formulate answers on the fly (hence the disastrous Curic interview).
 
cwalner said:
I have not ready the book, but enjoyed the movie.

To my mind Palin was portrayed much more sympathetically than I previously thought of her (although that probably says more about my preconceptions then of her). I found it intriguing how she was portrayed as both a perpetrator and victim in creating her public image.

As victim, she clearly was completely unprepared for the national stage and had no business playing at that level. She had know way of knowing that but McCain's advisors did, but completely dropped the ball.

As perpetrator, she also started to really enjoy the celebrity and verged on megalomania towards the end.

The movie portrayed her as a great mouthpiece and public speaker when she was able to memorize a speech in advance, but clearly had neither the knowledge base nor the intellectual ability to formulate answers on the fly (hence the disastrous Curic interview).
Click to expand...
Yes, there was one point in the movie where the Schmidt characters has a brilliant insight. He realizes there is not enough time (if there would ever be) to teach her about foreign policy, so instead he says, "We have the best actress in the world up there. Just write her a few lines and tell her when to say them."

It worked pretty well, all things considered.
 
Tricky said:
Yes, there was one point in the movie where the Schmidt characters has a brilliant insight. He realizes there is not enough time (if there would ever be) to teach her about foreign policy, so instead he says, "We have the best actress in the world up there. Just write her a few lines and tell her when to say them."

It worked pretty well, all things considered.
Click to expand...

I have several friends involved in the performing arts. From their stories, the Director/Actor dynamic is not very different from what was portrayed as the Schmidt/Palin dynamic. This definitely includes the perception of directors regarding the intelligence of the actors.

So I am not certain that it is an objective portrayal of Palin. I, however, have no doubt that it accurately reflects McCain's campaign staffers' opinions of her.
 
a_unique_person said:
Ed Harris has been one of those guys who always does a good job acting and has never been a big name, stand out star.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I don't think his makeup team did as good of a job as they did on Julianne Moore. He didn't look quite right as McCain, whereas she was a dead ringer for Palin.
 
cwalner said:
Agreed, but I don't think his makeup team did as good of a job as they did on Julianne Moore. He didn't look quite right as McCain, whereas she was a dead ringer for Palin.
Click to expand...


Agree. Here's a scene-for-scene comparison:



I greatly enjoyed the movie. Very scary, though...
 
Last edited:
Considering that most of the information for telling the events in the movie come from Schmidt and Wallace, and they have verified its accuracy, and they also have no political reason to tell an untrue tale of Palin's venality, yes, I think it's likely accurate.

On to McCain... He's not the focus of the story, so there's not much, either good or bad, to report about him from the events depicted (other than accepting her as the VP pick without personally vetting her for the ability to think and speak on her feet). What's most interesting about the McCain is the scene where Schmidt asks him to have a talk with Palin to try to bring her into line, since should wouldn't listen to the campaign people anymore. He flat-out refused, saying that he didn't want her to turn on him next. Overall, a sensible decision on his part. He had already figured out that limiting his contact with this massive mistake was the best thing for him to do.
 
What I find really interesting is Schmidt's character. While he is portrayed somewhat sympathetically, it is also clear the mistake was full on his shoulders. He was the one who pushed for style over substance in the first place (the whole rhetoric about celebrity). He was ultimately in charge of the Vet, which failed so miserably. It seemed as if they almost willfully disregarded potential problems to get what they wanted, a young attractive conservative who had the star appeal to match what they saw in Obama. The fact is that whatever you think about her politics, she certainly fit the criteria that the campaign was looking for.
 
I haven't seen the movie (yet... and probably will never find time for the book). I therefore will not comment on the substance of movie. I note that some of the harshest critics who branded it as inaccurate or a hatchet job or whatever ... could not be bothered to actually see the movie before forming what they believed to be an "informed" opinion about it. Others, who HAD seen the movie and who were asked to identify the specific inaccuracies, pointed out trivialities.

I'm reminded of a few past works that were similarly dismissed as fantasy. One was "The Final Days," Woodward & Bernstein's account of the events leading up to Richard Nixon's resignation. Nixon drinking, Nixon talking to himself, Nixon saying uncomplimentary things, Nixon praying with Henry Kissinger. All of these events were denied. And later, admitted. Although he was not the source for the book, Nixon himself later admitted that the tale of prayer with Kissinger was pretty much true (implying either that Kissinger was the source or that Kissinger blabbed about this highly personal incident to others).

I'm also reminded of the movie about Ronald Reagan that was heavily criticized by people who hadn't seen it. Those who were asked to identify any particular inaccuracies could not do so; they simply spoke in generalities like, "That's not the Ronald Reagan I knew."

The same pattern occurred while Reagan was actually president. Reported stories were denied as false, and news agencies (sometimes to defend themselves and their journalistic integrity) showed footage proving that they were telling the truth. Despite White House denials, Reagan HAD called some people "sonsabitches" in public. Despite the President's denial, Nancy Reagan HAD fed her husband an answer when he was stumped by a reporter's question. Despite his denial, George H.W. Bush HAD used the term "voodoo economics" to describe the economic models he would later be required to support. It goes on and on. Some folks cannot distinguish what actually happened from what they wish had happened.

So, when it comes to charges of dishonesty or inaccuracy in a movie or book or TV show, it's put up or shut up. Point out what's in error and show us your proof. Otherwise, you've got no credibility.

I've pointed out that there are movies that I deem historically inaccurate in several ways (including "Braveheart," "Apollo 13" and the grand-daddy of all B.S. History, "JFK"). In each case, I am able to say WHY these movies are inaccurate and identify support and evidence for each assertion.
 
Brown said:
I've pointed out that there are movies that I deem historically inaccurate in several ways (including "Braveheart," "Apollo 13" and the grand-daddy of all B.S. History, "JFK"). In each case, I am able to say WHY these movies are inaccurate and identify support and evidence for each assertion.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, anyone can reasonably justify a position using logically valid argument based on reason and evidence. So what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom