Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:06 AM Mar 2012

My thoughts on Game Change...

McCain was definitely given a pass in this movie. I do not believe his hands are nearly as clean as they suggest. He signed off on a lot of the bad campaign tactics and got into the mud well through October and kept at it until the day of the election. There was no redeeming moment in the real campaign where you knew he regretted everything he had done.

Yes, he gave a beautiful concession speech, but his subsequent actions in the wake of his defeat shows really how bitter he was over that loss.

As much as I do not like Sarah Palin, she did not cost John McCain the election. McCain was going to lose regardless of his pick. Yes, Palin made it easier to vote for Barack Obama, but had he gone with Pawlenty or Romney, the electoral map doesn't change and the overall vote total is probably about the same.

McCain lost the election because he just didn't run a very good campaign. During the Al Smith Dinner, in the final weeks of the campaign, Obama joked that McCain essentially fell into the nomination because his toughest threat was a pro-choice Republican who liked to wear women's clothes.

Let's be honest, the field was extremely weak in 2008 on the Republican side. McCain only won because Romney flopped in Iowa, Huckabee was too extreme and Giuliani ran the worst presidential campaign in American history (oh and Fred Thompson decided to sleep through the thing).

The campaign in the general wasn't much better. He was the one who decided to suspend the campaign. He was the one who performed poorly in the debates. He was the one, even if the movie suggests not entirely, to really feed the hatred of the right, scaring moderate voters who liked Obama, but had some reservations about his campaign.

In the end, he lost because he was swimming against the current. No Republican was going to knockoff Obama four years ago. Obama ran a great and very disciplined campaign that didn't stoop to cheap moments (like that stupid Obama = celebrity ad) and didn't make a terribly political vice presidential pick (well, in the dynamic sense of the words, since Biden was a very safe pick). He also didn't flinch when the economy tanked, like McCain, who, as I said, not only suspended his campaign, but made a fool of himself by saying the fundamentals of our economy was strong - it wasn't.

That's why he lost. Palin was a sideshow, really a freak show, but she didn't cost McCain victory. This idea she was a game changer is ridiculous. Yes, she boosted him in the polls initially, but that was no different than the boost Mondale-Ferraro saw in '84. They were already losing steam even before the interviews with Charley Gibson and Katie Couric.

Still, it was a fun movie. I think it shows just how mentally unfit Palin was and why McCain made a horrible choice in selecting her. Had he won and somehow couldn't serve, our country would be a in a mess right now (hell, let's be honest, we'd be in a mess had he won and was still alive).

Palin was woefully inexperienced. She shouldn't have been on the list and she wasn't properly vetted(which is humorous, considering her recent claims about Obama - err, projection much, Sarah?) - but in a way, I feel bad for her. She was so not ready for the storm of a national campaign. She still isn't. She's not intellectually there to be put into that position. Hell, at least Bush could at least pretend to get it to the point where he wasn't an utter disaster when faced with tough questions.

That's not her fault. Sarah just isn't a national leader. She's a governor and a mayor. Nothing wrong with that. I don't think I've got the wits, temper or experience to ever run for national office. I would not make a good president. I'm not afraid to admit that.

But that's the difference between Palin & myself, I guess. I know my limits, I don't think she does. And because of that, my sympathy is short lived. She's turned her whole persona into a celebrity of sorts, which is ironic considering that's exactly what she accused Obama of being the last go around.

So, interesting movie. Not as good as Primary Colors, but still fun.

In summary: thank God Palin ain't VP.

49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
My thoughts on Game Change... (Original Post) Drunken Irishman Mar 2012 OP
I think you're giving Palin a pass... cynatnite Mar 2012 #1
Oh I agree...but I don't think McCain would have won had he gone with Pawlenty or Romney. Drunken Irishman Mar 2012 #2
Won what? Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #12
What do you think? Drunken Irishman Mar 2012 #14
Color me clueless, but he had the nomination MONTHS before Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #17
The presidency. Drunken Irishman Mar 2012 #22
Someone correct me, but he didn't win the presidency. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #27
There are people who think that Palin cost McCain the presidency. Iggo Mar 2012 #34
Thank you. I really didn't think it was that hard to understand haha Drunken Irishman Mar 2012 #45
Ditto to all that you just posted Mr Irishman. Marie Marie Mar 2012 #3
I watched it and I wish... CoffeeCat Mar 2012 #4
Republicans have a history of running/electing actors and posuers Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #7
Yes, that's true... CoffeeCat Mar 2012 #8
"We were all sexist for doing so. Anyone remember that?" Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #13
Good analysis. Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #5
I really liked your realization No. 2 left on green only Mar 2012 #11
A very thoughtful, well written review. However, Ms. P did not have to mulsh Mar 2012 #6
I'm not relying on a for-profit movie channel like HBO to teach me history; period. nt progress2k12nbynd Mar 2012 #9
Cool. Drunken Irishman Mar 2012 #10
Its not cool its idiotic. Since when did "for profit" become an automatic definer of fact. grantcart Mar 2012 #19
I was being sarcastic. Drunken Irishman Mar 2012 #21
ok going to have to get my sarcastic meter fixed lol. grantcart Mar 2012 #23
So you are going to rely on not for profit publishing or other media avenues? grantcart Mar 2012 #15
Your slip is showing scheming daemons Mar 2012 #28
Wow..you pop up everywhere..with your sanctimony. Who are you anyway? nt Laura PourMeADrink Mar 2012 #30
I hope you don't read books either, since almost all of them NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #31
So please tell what you do rely on to teach you history lunatica Mar 2012 #35
Rec for dicussion, don't necessarily agree but I haven't watched yet. joshcryer Mar 2012 #16
I disagree with you on McCain and his views about keeping the campaign race free. grantcart Mar 2012 #18
Kudos to the McCains for that WolverineDG Mar 2012 #32
I responded to the point on McCain above but I wanted to make another comment about the references grantcart Mar 2012 #20
McCain's big stand against using Rev Wright in the campaign was quite humorous Son of Gob Mar 2012 #24
Palin has such a hard core cult following, it's unreal. I personally believe that McCain would have IndyJones Mar 2012 #25
I don't know about that Indy ... Greywing Mar 2012 #43
So many people love her. She draws major crowds and interest STILL. Heck, Hannity IndyJones Mar 2012 #49
"It wasn't a campaign, it was a bad reality show." joshcryer Mar 2012 #26
It was an imperfect storm. Palin, a screw-loose narcissist, did not have a single Laura PourMeADrink Mar 2012 #29
CNN's Howard Kurtz looked so disappointed this morning aint_no_life_nowhere Mar 2012 #33
Well the bedroom scene with Todd telling Sarah to just be herself lunatica Mar 2012 #36
That's a controversial scene? aint_no_life_nowhere Mar 2012 #37
Are you responding to my post? lunatica Mar 2012 #40
I assumed you were responding to my post since you posted beneath it aint_no_life_nowhere Mar 2012 #42
I think that they probably have witnesses seeing him tell that to her at various times grantcart Mar 2012 #38
Sure, but the movies shows it in a bedroom with no witnesses lunatica Mar 2012 #41
to give it a more intimate setting allowing them to interact in a more relaxed way. grantcart Mar 2012 #44
The filmmakers also said they filled in gaps with Palin's own book aint_no_life_nowhere Mar 2012 #39
I think that was one of only a few scenes that actually made Sarah look good... Drunken Irishman Mar 2012 #46
k and r niyad Mar 2012 #47
Kind of an utterly fucking useless film, imo jsmirman Mar 2012 #48

cynatnite

(31,011 posts)
1. I think you're giving Palin a pass...
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:12 AM
Mar 2012

I agree that all of this falls at McCain's feet, but Palin scared the hell out of people. Her lack of basic knowledge of the world and tactics in dividing America was what did it for a lot of people. McCain is an old man who had battled cancer. She would have been one step away from nuclear codes. I know repubs who stayed home because of her.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
22. The presidency.
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:54 AM
Mar 2012

I don't think, had he picked Pawlenty or Romney, that he would have won the presidency. So, in the end, Palin didn't cost him the election.

Just his credibility.

Ruby the Liberal

(26,219 posts)
27. Someone correct me, but he didn't win the presidency.
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 08:57 AM
Mar 2012

Not meaning to 'hound', but your point makes no sense?

Iggo

(47,552 posts)
34. There are people who think that Palin cost McCain the presidency.
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:10 PM
Mar 2012

They think that if McCain hadn't picked Palin, had picked Pawlenty instead, that he would've won the general election.

Drunken Irishman is not one of those people.

That's what he's saying.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
45. Thank you. I really didn't think it was that hard to understand haha
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:32 PM
Mar 2012

Yes, there are many who say, "Palin cost McCain the presidency..." suggesting he would have won had he picked a more conservative, safe pick like Romney or Pawlenty. I disagree. He was going to lose the election regardless of his pick.

I don't know how much Palin changed the dynamics - whether she made the race closer or worse than had it been someone else. BUT I don't believe McCain would have ever won the presidency with someone else. So, in that regard, Palin wasn't the reason he lost. He lost because he ran a poor campaign against a very good candidate in a tough time.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
4. I watched it and I wish...
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:33 AM
Mar 2012

...I could go get some eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind job performed on my brain.

I'm still thinking about that movie and that horrible woman. I forgot how disgusting she was during the campaign and Julianne Moore's performance was brilliant--and brought it all back so vividly. Dang!

My take aways from Game Changer are:

Damn the entire Republican party for foisting that narcissistic, crazy-ass freak on our country--and continuing the campaign knowing that she was dangerous. She could have been one heartbeat away from the Presidency--and they knew she was deranged and they continued with her. I remember all of them standing up for her, rationalizing her ignorance and attacking anyone who dared to question her. We were all sexist for doing so. Anyone remember that?

They knew she was batshit crazy and they were willing to allow someone like that in the upper echelons of our government. That is the ultimate betrayal. As far as I'm concerned they're just as bad as Palin because they propped up the charade just to win an election.

I disagree with John McCain on many, many things. However, he did do some decent things during his campaign. He did set that woman "Obama is an Arab" straight and correct her. He did the right thing. He's against Limbaugh and the rabid wing of his party. He has more decency and common sense than most Republicans. I disagree with him politically on many, many issues--but politics is supposed to be a rollicking debate. McCain often bucks his party when they're going off the deep end. He does deserve credit for that.

It's interesting now though---Rove hates Palin. Rove is at the epicenter of the neocon/corporatist evil that has permeated the Republican party. However, the Limbaughs and Hannitys of talk radio love her. Hannity positions her as some kind of Oracle when she's on Fox News. It's entirely pathetic. You just have to wonder how all of this works and what it means.

Anyhoo--I think our country is in serious trouble when an ignorant narcissist can be propped up like that and marketed to us with so many lies--when they damn well knew what a train wreck she was.

The ramifications of her being anywhere near the White House could have been ten times the disaster that the campaign ever was.

It's pretty sick if you ask me

Old and In the Way

(37,540 posts)
7. Republicans have a history of running/electing actors and posuers
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:59 AM
Mar 2012

Reagan, Bush2, and Palin all were popular with the base...yet they had little to no intellectual depth to do the job. Reagan was a great actor who played the role well...proof is that the Base still thinks he ran his Presidency....when it was Baker,Regan, and Deaver calling the shots. Bush was clearly in over his head...and he couldn't even act the role. Palin would have charmed the base as POTUS, but she might have been the most dangerous as we saw in this movie - once she started getting postive feedback from the Base, she developed that unwarranted confidence and would have been making irrational demands had she ever gotten into the office. Ironically, the Poppy Bush was probably the most capable of the bunch, but he didn't have the right image the Base wanted and was quite disliked...so he became a 1 termer.

I'm convinced, more than ever, the Base of the Republican Party is the problem....the candidates that are running in this election are all fatally flawed and can no longer even appear to be moderate. The base doesn't value intelligence (surprise - anti-science/anti-education), just red meat rhetorical responses. They want a John Wayne/Arnold Schwarzenegger/Ronald Reagan personality with Rush Limbaugh's rhetoric. They don't care how awful the results will be, as long as they get to choose the President. Anyone else is an islamocommiefascistmuslim traitor.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
8. Yes, that's true...
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 02:03 AM
Mar 2012

The base of the Republican party is a bunch of extremist, ignorant kooks. And the Republicans are more than willing to pander to them.

McCain really didn't want to campaign like that--according to this movie--but Palin couldn't wait to throw some red meat to her rabid supporters.

It's really depressing that there are so many ignorant, id-driven idiots in the Republican party who vote for dangerous people like this.

Ruby the Liberal

(26,219 posts)
13. "We were all sexist for doing so. Anyone remember that?"
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 02:57 AM
Mar 2012

I wasn't on DU, but locally, the PUMAs were out in force on that.

Old and In the Way

(37,540 posts)
5. Good analysis.
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:38 AM
Mar 2012

Ed Harris made John's character a lot nicer than McCain actually is from what I've seen of John over the years. I suspect McCain is a vain, bitter, prickly, and short-tempered man who probably didn't understand how it was possible for Obama to be more popular than he was. There wasn't much new for us at DU who paid close attention to the rise and fall of Sarah Palin, but there were 3 things I didn't know-

(1) Her lapses into near catatonic states of immobility
(2) The realization that she was incapable of absorbing debate material - so they had her memorize generalized questions.
(3) Nicole Wallace, the person tasked with getting Palin prepared for media interviews....ended up not voting for the ticket. Very illuminating.

Harrelson was pretty good in his role, I think. I've been warming up to Schmidt on the Election night commentary he's been doing. He seems pretty honest in assessments. He made a huge mistake on gambling with Palin as VP...but I'm not sure anyone could have helped McCain to win in 2008.

The Right will be howling about the unfair portrayal...but, in the end, there will be no counter-factual argument they can make to discredit "Game Change". It really seemed to be a reasonable portrayal of Palin - in front of and in back of the camera.

left on green only

(1,484 posts)
11. I really liked your realization No. 2
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 02:52 AM
Mar 2012

In current times, has anyone noticed the job that they have done on "Joe The Plumber". He is a zombie for their cause.

mulsh

(2,959 posts)
6. A very thoughtful, well written review. However, Ms. P did not have to
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:40 AM
Mar 2012

accept the position. She's as much to blame for being the v.p. candidate as the craven pols who put her name out there. None of them get will ever get a pass from me, let alone much respect.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
19. Its not cool its idiotic. Since when did "for profit" become an automatic definer of fact.
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:31 AM
Mar 2012

For the record DU is a 'for profit' enterprise.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
15. So you are going to rely on not for profit publishing or other media avenues?
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:05 AM
Mar 2012

I guess that would leave you with NPR and your local community ad weekly, oh no that also is for profit.
 

scheming daemons

(25,487 posts)
28. Your slip is showing
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 10:11 AM
Mar 2012

Posting the same exact thing on every game change thread, low post count, never replying to your critics....


Yep.

NYC Liberal

(20,135 posts)
31. I hope you don't read books either, since almost all of them
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 11:20 AM
Mar 2012

are put out by for-profit publishing companies.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
35. So please tell what you do rely on to teach you history
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:25 PM
Mar 2012

You're cutting and pasting this comment all over the place today without adding a single thing of substance.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
18. I disagree with you on McCain and his views about keeping the campaign race free.
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:30 AM
Mar 2012

The limitations and his point to keep race out of it was well documented and McCain should be commended on it.

Also he probably lost the nomination to Rove and Bush in 2000 because they spread the rumor that he had an illegitimate n***** daughter. The truth is that the Cindy McCains saw a girl in a Bengladeshi orphanage whose life she thought was in danger and immediately added her to the family and probably saved her life. As a proud father of a beautiful loving adopted daughter of another race I have tremendous respect for what the McCains did. John McCain is a complicated person, as I suppose most of us are, but he could have done a lot of things during the campaign but he didn't. On inserting race into the campaign McCain took the high road and that is a clear fact.

That he was churlish after the campaign and bitter is well human and understandable, these guys get invested in it.

Here are the relevent facts about John McCain. He is the only candidate of a major party for President that adopted a child from another race. He is the only modern White candidate to have lost the nomination and possibly the White House by having rumors planted that he fathered a child with an African American.

And then there is this. He is probably the only nominee of a major party to lose and then have to fight for his life in a PRIMARY in his own state to keep his old job. I am guessing that if he had unleashed the Rev. Wright ads and taken the low ride he wouldn't have had to worry much about the primary, they would have loved him.

Its unfortunate that McCain didn't keep on the high road after the general election but I don't think that should be ascribed to the general election but rather the fact that he had to fight for his life in the primary two years later. And as the movie showed in his mind it is literally a fight for his life because when his father and grandfather stopped working their life ended (his grandfather died the day after the Japanese surrendered and his father slipped into a depressed melancholy after he retired).

Given that his fellow Republicans have treated him so disgracefully in part because of his generous act of adopting Bridget I suggest that we do the opposite, and give him the benefit of the doubt and agree with the movie's interpretation. I think its accurate. There are plenty of other points that we can disagree with the Senator on. And then there is this, the fact that McCain didn't use race as an issue really pisses of most of the Republican Party, that alone should give us more than enough reason to cut McCain a break.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2673964/John-McCains-adopted-daughter-from-Bangladesh-introduced.html



Bridget McCain, who was taken to America from a Bangladeshi orphanage by Mr McCain's wife Cindy in 1991, was introduced to delegates in Minneapolis in her first appearance of the presidential campaign.

Wes Gullett, a former aide to Mr McCain, told the audience that Mrs McCain had spotted Bridget and another child among 160 abandoned babies at a centre run by the late Mother Teresa in Dhaka.

Bridget had suffered a cleft palate so severe that she could not be fed, while the other had a serious heart condition.

Fearing both would die without medical attention, Mrs McCain demanded that she be allowed to take the children back to the US, and applied for visas. She argued furiously with Bangladeshi officials until they were signed. "I don't know where I got the nerve," Mrs McCain said later

The first Mr McCain knew of Bridget, Mr Gullett told the convention, was when he met his wife at the airport in Arizona. He asked: "Where is she going?" to which she replied: "To our house."

WolverineDG

(22,298 posts)
32. Kudos to the McCains for that
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 11:56 AM
Mar 2012

I may not care for their political views, but they both get a big from me for adopting Bridget.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
20. I responded to the point on McCain above but I wanted to make another comment about the references
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:37 AM
Mar 2012

to MSNBC.

The people at Fox must be fried. If you didn't see the movie it showed the McCain getting virtually all of its feedback from MSNBC and it had a big impact on the campaign.

The funniest part of the whole movie is where Steve Schmidt says "I have to get McCain to stop watching Keith Olbermann". Kuric, CNN and Fox were all window dressing but the movie showed the campaign taking every single blow that MSNBC and Keith Olbermann gave.

Son of Gob

(1,502 posts)
24. McCain's big stand against using Rev Wright in the campaign was quite humorous
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 05:52 AM
Mar 2012

considering the media had already beaten that horse to death months before during the primaries.

IndyJones

(1,068 posts)
25. Palin has such a hard core cult following, it's unreal. I personally believe that McCain would have
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 05:56 AM
Mar 2012

lost by a bigger margin without her. McCain wasn't a strong candidate.

Greywing

(1,124 posts)
43. I don't know about that Indy ...
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:05 PM
Mar 2012

Chances are good that Palin would not have really come to national attention without McCain. Palin would have remained in Alaska as governor (she probably would not have been electable as Senator or Rep as some things were already coming to light ala Troopergate and the Wasilla debt after she served as mayor). Just think of it .... no cult ... no rabid right wing support ... no Fox fame ... no "Sarah, Sarah, Sarah" chants ...

IndyJones

(1,068 posts)
49. So many people love her. She draws major crowds and interest STILL. Heck, Hannity
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 05:12 AM
Mar 2012

nearly wets his pants everytime he talks to her. And right wing pundits admit they have a crush on her. I don't know what it is about her, but right wing men just fawn all over her. Not all, but a lot. Most women I know think she's a ding dong walking talking point.

McCain is about as uninspiring as you can get. He had zero excitement before Palin's entrance. Good or bad, Palin at least brought something to talk about.

joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
26. "It wasn't a campaign, it was a bad reality show."
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 06:03 AM
Mar 2012

Sorry, have to disagree, the movie makes a convincing argument that Palin was the destruction of McCain's campaign.

Palin destroyed any hope for the McCain presidency.

Granted, I do agree that McCain had no chance in hell of winning, that is without a doubt.

But Palin destroyed any hope of a win for McCain. Had he chose someone else (Pawlenty maybe) it wouldn't have been the landslide that elected Obama.

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
29. It was an imperfect storm. Palin, a screw-loose narcissist, did not have a single
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 10:46 AM
Mar 2012

clue that she wasn't capable enough to be Veep (normal people would), clashing
with a desparate campaign that needed oomph.

Have you read the book? Far superior in my opinion.

Also, think a toned down Tina Fey would have been far superior than Moore (minority opinion, I know)


aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)
33. CNN's Howard Kurtz looked so disappointed this morning
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:08 PM
Mar 2012

He interviewed the two filmmakers of Game Change on his show Reliable Sources. Time and again he tried to get them to admit that the story was biased and one-sided against Palin. The filmmakers kept telling Kurtz that more than a dozen people who were there all corroborated this image of Palin. Kurtz looked very disappointed and then tried to get the filmmakers to admit that, well, it was still just the opinion of those more than a dozen people around Palin and that even though everyone involved backed up the portrayal of Palin, it was still one-sided. Kurtz even waved in their faces a handbill distributed by Republicans at private screenings of the film that charge it with bias.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
36. Well the bedroom scene with Todd telling Sarah to just be herself
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:35 PM
Mar 2012

seems a bit of a stretch for any 'witnesses' to corroborate yet it's in the movie. Who the hell was there to actually see it happen which begs the question asking if it even happened? That's just one instance of dishonesty or of simply making it up so as to back up the writer's bias.

A grain of salt comes in handy especially in political movies.

aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)
37. That's a controversial scene?
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:40 PM
Mar 2012

Kurtz was referencing the scenes where Palin was acting up in front of lots of people, suggesting all those Republican operatives were all in on a liberal Hollywood conspiracy.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
40. Are you responding to my post?
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:52 PM
Mar 2012

What does Kurtz have to do with the scene where Todd tells Palin to just be herself while they're in the bedroom with no witnesses? Who was there to witness it and tell him about it?

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
38. I think that they probably have witnesses seeing him tell that to her at various times
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:40 PM
Mar 2012

Seems like a natural thing he would say.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
41. Sure, but the movies shows it in a bedroom with no witnesses
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:54 PM
Mar 2012

I don't think the movie is supposed to be fiction and if Todd said that to her in front of witnesses then why not show that?

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
44. to give it a more intimate setting allowing them to interact in a more relaxed way.
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:31 PM
Mar 2012


A thing doesn't have to be literally true to be true.

Are you arguing that Todd wasn't giving her advice to "be herself"?

aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)
39. The filmmakers also said they filled in gaps with Palin's own book
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:47 PM
Mar 2012

That bedroom scene didn't specifically come up in the Kurtz interview but there's a good chance it appeared in Palin's own Going Rogue which the filmmakers said they also consulted.

jsmirman

(4,507 posts)
48. Kind of an utterly fucking useless film, imo
Mon Mar 12, 2012, 12:21 AM
Mar 2012

I am STUNNED that there are people on this board who found this anything other than even more of a rehash than the book was.

There was ONE SINGLE THING that was interesting and new to me in the movie - I didn't know that/didn't recall that Nicole Wallace didn't vote. That was interesting in a "human interest" sort of way.

Otherwise, is this movie really going to be anything other than a political Rorschach test? Pretty much any of the Tina Fey skits were more incisive than this movie about a bunch of shit we already knew.

This movie seems to hit a real sweet spot of political self-indulgence - I find it hard to believe that any part of the public that hasn't realized Palin is an unqualified horror show is not going to be convinced by this film. And for those of us already convinced, is this really much more than two hours of skillful impersonations?

Mostly, I feel much the same as I felt about the book - the campaign - from the first primary to election night - was fascinating - I can't believe they couldn't wring more excitement out of such an amazing story. The campaign - even without elaboration - unfolded like a great work of fiction, with a cast of singular characters, self-contained chapters, as a period of weeks with one narrative would yield to the next, an enormously rich backdrop, as landmark external events played out over the course of 2008, and a series of dramatic moments that you simply couldn't top if you were making the stuff up.

I know that what I lived was way more exciting, harrowing, hilarious, frustrating and poignant than either the book or the film. And my experiences amounted to a tiny slice of the campaign.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»My thoughts on Game Chang...