I sought out Game Change for a round-about reason. I knew it was "that Sarah Palin movie" and didn't have much inclination to watch a left-wing propaganda piece. I had already developed a fairly robust set of opinions about Palin and didn't need to see a movie about her. I read Roger Ebert's rave review of the film back in March, but hadn't made any effort to see the movie. Later in the year, an impressive and sensible younger Republican named Steve Schmidt, who is a well-spoken, passionate fiscal conservative, landed on my radar. I found out that he was one of the protagonists of Game Change played by Woody Harrelson. Now, I would watch a movie about that guy.
For the first thirty minutes of Game Change, a viewer maybe unaware of the political persuasion of the filmmakers. Even afterwards, the film centers on characters who champion conservative ideals. They are the heroes of the film, after all. Julianne Moore's portrayal of Sarah Palin is surprisingly sympathetic. She's fiercely loyal to McCain and genuinely likable, even if the movie reinforces the idea that she was woefully unqualified for the position (because she was). I felt bad for her ignorance at times.
Only when Steve Schmidt asked Palin about the English-American alliance did we understand that the film would focus on her educational shortcomings. The film dramatizes her botched responses and dramatizes her victories too. However, the film doesn't give her own thoughts any consideration until late in the film. For more than an hour, her political personality was reduced to note cards and memorized lines. Even liberals felt like the film over-simplified Palin. Then, quickly, after her debate victory over Biden, the film deviates from its original course and presents her as an attention-mongering bubble-head.
At that point, the film became less interesting. I would say that it also became less believable, but both Steve Schmidt, lead campaign strategist for the 2008 McCain campaign, and Nicolle Wallace, Senior Campaign Adviser, say that the film is largely accurate.
There were two scenes in the film that were utterly made up to present Palin in a bad light. In the scene that Schmidt asks Palin about Britain, she doesn't know that the Prime Minister heads the government. I'm sure this scene was added because it is a fact that nearly every American knows and it puts the audience on a superior intellectual level to Palin, underscoring her lack of political knowledge to benefit an audience that probably knows even less than her. The second is when Palin outright states that she is the main draw of the campaign so she will do "what she wants." We know that many campaign advisers got this impression of her, and in order to convey that within the framework of a two-hour movie, I suppose there's no more efficient way than to have her say it, but I seriously doubt she said something so obviously selfish.
The first half of the film is superior than the second. Enough so to keep me invested to the end. I especially liked the use of Obama footage that made him appear as a formidable antagonist. After the movie began portraying Sarah Palin as nothing more than an out-of-control ego, I gleaned nothing new or insightful from the film. The film was rewarding, mostly. The film was interesting, mostly. I can't ask for too much more out of a political movie.
For the first thirty minutes of Game Change, a viewer maybe unaware of the political persuasion of the filmmakers. Even afterwards, the film centers on characters who champion conservative ideals. They are the heroes of the film, after all. Julianne Moore's portrayal of Sarah Palin is surprisingly sympathetic. She's fiercely loyal to McCain and genuinely likable, even if the movie reinforces the idea that she was woefully unqualified for the position (because she was). I felt bad for her ignorance at times.
Only when Steve Schmidt asked Palin about the English-American alliance did we understand that the film would focus on her educational shortcomings. The film dramatizes her botched responses and dramatizes her victories too. However, the film doesn't give her own thoughts any consideration until late in the film. For more than an hour, her political personality was reduced to note cards and memorized lines. Even liberals felt like the film over-simplified Palin. Then, quickly, after her debate victory over Biden, the film deviates from its original course and presents her as an attention-mongering bubble-head.
At that point, the film became less interesting. I would say that it also became less believable, but both Steve Schmidt, lead campaign strategist for the 2008 McCain campaign, and Nicolle Wallace, Senior Campaign Adviser, say that the film is largely accurate.
There were two scenes in the film that were utterly made up to present Palin in a bad light. In the scene that Schmidt asks Palin about Britain, she doesn't know that the Prime Minister heads the government. I'm sure this scene was added because it is a fact that nearly every American knows and it puts the audience on a superior intellectual level to Palin, underscoring her lack of political knowledge to benefit an audience that probably knows even less than her. The second is when Palin outright states that she is the main draw of the campaign so she will do "what she wants." We know that many campaign advisers got this impression of her, and in order to convey that within the framework of a two-hour movie, I suppose there's no more efficient way than to have her say it, but I seriously doubt she said something so obviously selfish.
The first half of the film is superior than the second. Enough so to keep me invested to the end. I especially liked the use of Obama footage that made him appear as a formidable antagonist. After the movie began portraying Sarah Palin as nothing more than an out-of-control ego, I gleaned nothing new or insightful from the film. The film was rewarding, mostly. The film was interesting, mostly. I can't ask for too much more out of a political movie.
RSS Feed
