Sunday, March 11, 2012

"I just don't want to let John down."

Photobucket


Many people, myself included, approached the idea of the Game Change film with slight wariness, an attitude of “too soon” surrounding the whole project. However, in looking at the political landscape in this current election, it is perhaps more necessary than ever that we are given a reminder of what it was like the last time around.

The film is ultimately quite even-handed in its portrayal of Sarah Palin. This is thanks entirely to the performance of Julianne Moore. Moore has built her career on playing characters that can perhaps best be referred to as the “Complicated American Woman” (see The Hours or Far From Heaven) and within minutes of this film, it becomes impossible to imagine such a sensitive role in the hands of any other actress. For Tina Fey, playing Palin was mainly about getting the voice down. For Moore, it is about finding where Sarah Palin, the woman, ends and where Palin the frightened child begins.

Indeed, the dynamic established between Palin and the majority of the McCain staff (particularly Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace) is akin to that between cautious parents and a petulant daughter. She is frequently referred to as “poor girl” by Ed Harris’s John McCain, and in one scene where she is essentially giving her advisers the silent treatment, Schmidt (a captivating Woody Harrelson) appeals to her as one would an insecure teenage girl, commenting on how he is concerned at her weight loss and that she should give up her no-carb diet.

Whether it’s because of our own proximity to the 2008 election or because of our national perspective on the event itself (after all, we know how the film ends before it begins), it is truly not possible to watch this and offer any sincere mea culpa about how rigorously she was criticized throughout the McCain campaign. That said, the film does not necessarily ask this of us. Instead, we are asked only to understand that this woman quite simply should never have been chosen for this position. To this end, we are able to pity her.

As far as any “bias” goes within the film-making itself (and I admit I do not have enough background knowledge on the production process and cannot speak to sources beyond the book) the most glaring point of contention is that, through its portrayal of McCain’s staff, it seems to suggest that the selection of Sarah Palin was the sole mistake made in the entire McCain campaign. It does include references to the week in which McCain postponed debates in order to return to Washington and deal with the economy, as well as the increasingly harsh rhetoric used toward the end of the campaign, but even in these instances, the blame is either placed on others or disregarded entirely.

By the end of the film, we have not been led to “like” Sarah Palin. But we do find ourselves with a better understanding of who she was, and how the American population responded to, and in some senses manipulated, the image she presented. There are moments where even the film itself is willing to poke fun. The conversation between Palin and Steve Schmidt over the pronunciation of “Biden” (as opposed to “O’Biden, as Palin kept saying) borders on Abbot and Costello routine.

However, as stated, this film does prove that we have gained enough distance from the 2008 election that we are at least able to feel sorry for her. As Palin watches in silent humiliation while Tina Fey and Amy Poehler lambaste her Katie Couric interview, I admit that a part of me just wanted to step in and tell her to change the damn channel.

No comments:

Post a Comment