There’s a lot of buzz in the political world about “Game Change,” the movie version of the 2008 campaign best-seller that premieres next month on HBO.
The book, by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, focused equally on the bitter contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, and the troubled McCain-Palin ticket that went down to defeat in November ’08.
But the movie is about just one topic: Sarah Palin. Director Jay Roach jettisoned most of the book’s riveting political story so he could focus on the tumultuous period in which John McCain chose the then-governor of Alaska as his running mate.
Despite a few positive touches, no one will be surprised to learn that “Game Change,” the movie, will present an overwhelmingly negative portrait of Palin. Roach — he also directed the one-sided, pro-Gore “Recount” about the 2000 election — even goes beyond the book to throw in some new material from his own research. Roach also compressed some events and turned descriptions of conversations into dialogue that may or may not have actually happened.
But put that aside. Why did Hollywood focus on only one-half of “Game Change”? The other half would have made a great movie.
It was certainly the most compelling part of the book, with no end of dramatic moments. The Clinton-Obama version of “Game Change” could have focused on the racially charged effort among white Democrats to stop the first black man with a serious chance of winning their party’s presidential nomination.
The alternate “Game Change” could have featured the spectacle of Bill Clinton, the nation’s “first black president,” doing everything he could, risking his own reputation and place in history, to stop an actual black man from winning the office.
The alternate “Game Change” could have featured white Democratic party elders torn over the Clinton-Obama contest, loyal to Mrs. Clinton yet impressed by Obama’s ability to speak “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” (in the infamous words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid).
And then there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. What a great role the fiery preacher from Chicago would have made! “Game Change” — the book — reported that Obama and his top aides knew all along that Wright would be a problem, and yet did nothing about it until Wright’s “Goddamn America” sermon burst into the news.
The alternate “Game Change” could have featured top Clinton aide Harold Ickes’ suggestion that the campaign hire a private investigator to probe Obama’s connections to Wright. “This guy has been sitting in the church for twenty f–king years,” Ickes is quoted in the book as saying. “If you really want to take him down, let’s take him f–king down.” Screenwriter Danny Strong — he also worked on “Recount” — couldn’t have written it better himself.
The movie also could have focused on Hillary Clinton’s anger at Obama’s ability to escape the Wright mess unscathed. “Just imagine, just for fun, if my pastor from Arkansas said the kind of things his pastor said,” Clinton told aides, according to the book. “I’m just saying. Just imagine. This race would be over.”
The guy who wrote the screenplay was more interested in Palin; I’m sure that Palin will generate huge ratings for HBO; Hillary Clinton? Not so much. Bill Clinton? Yesterday’s news. It’s not an HBO production about a book; it’s an HBO production about Palin. You are shocked/shocked that HBO has a liberal bias? They are a capitalistic entertainment entity which has made a ton of money producing shows which appeal to liberals.
Why don’t some conservative entrepreneurs start their own cable TV production company and find an audience for their own shows.
HBO isn’t a news organization. They are not part of the “MSM.” They provide entertainment, and they make a lot of money in the process.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
No, they aren’t a news organization. Nor are they part of the MSM. They provide entertainment, and, they do make a lot of money in the process. All that is true.
However, they also lean heavily towards liberalism when they present these types of “made for tv” movies , along with the documentaries they show. Couple this with Maher’s show, their documentary about the gas industry, their docu-drama about the 2000 election “Recount”, etc.
Granted, they may just be playing to the demographics of the people who typically watch HBO. I have no problem with that. My guess, though, is that you will see many people repeating what they saw in the movie adamantly claiming it’s truth. They did the same thing with the “Recount” movie.
Hi John,
I pay $25 per month for HBO (+Cinemax – bundled). Anyone who doesn’t like their shows needn’t pay.
Enough people stop paying, I guarantee they’ll change their programming.
– Larry
@Opened.aol.com/runnswim:
That’s true, Larry, but I was merely pointing out that their shows other than the mainstream big studio movies tend to lean towards the liberal side. And, as I said, they are probably playing to the demographics which their internal polls said would garner the most viewers. I don’t have a personal problem with that, as I can, as you suggested, not watch it if I choose.
@Opened.aol.com/runnswim: $25 a month for mind rotting propaganda – Larry — you have permanently disqualified yourself from any meaningful input to any discussion as far as I am concerned
Let the free market decide—right? Palin was the joke of the campaign, and still remains so.
CURT
HI, I think LARRY has a good idea, for FOX NEWS TO MAKE A GOOD ENTERTAINING VIDEO ABOUT what you describe, the real story bold and fearless as they are doing on their stories, they would draw a lot of viewers to see the other side FAIR AND BALANCED AND NOT AFRAID.
bye