Game Change

(Movie Review)

            Another HBO political movie.  This movie is by the same director and writer of Recount,  and because I enjoyed Recount so much, I thought I would check this movie out as well

            On the whole, I really enjoyed the movie.

            The writer has a great talent for being able to streamline a lot of messy real life events into a single simple narrative.  He also has a great talent for exposition dialogue, and a great economy with his words. There are some great scenes in this movie when McCain’s advisors are laying out the central campaign issues very clearly, and it is very easy for the audience to follow along.

            The acting was very good as well.

            Despite all this, I still found myself a bit bored in the middle.

            I have a hard time putting my finger on exactly why I got bored.  Perhaps the story of Sarah Palin was not enough to hold my interest for the whole film.  Or perhaps it was that I already knew in advance what the ending was going to be.

            Most likely, I think the problem was the middle of the film got a little bit episodic.  The middle of the film focused on a series of separate events—the build-up to the Charlie Rose interview, the Charlie Rose interview, the build-up to the Katie Couric interview, the Katie Couric interview, the build-up to the vice presidential debates, and then the vice presidential debates.  I think the attempt to build up tension and then resolution for each of these mini-climaxes caused the film as a whole to lose some momentum. 

            But then things got back on track for the final act of the film, which I found very entertaining.

            As for the content of the film:

            The accuracy of the film is a controversial issue since Sarah Palin and her advocates have denied the film is a truthful representation of what really happened.  I suspect your own view of the film is going to be heavily influenced by your individual politics— most conservatives are going to be critical of the film, and most liberals are going to accept it as true.

            I fall in the liberal camp myself.  Because this film was film was vouched for by the chief McCain campaign strategists (W), and because it fits my preconceived notions of Sarah Palin, I’m inclined to regard it as probably a mostly true portrayal.  (Although I do admit I’m biased.)

           

            The film presents Sarah Palin as a great communicator, but someone who has great difficulty understanding and remembering basic political facts. 

            I’ve always been a history/politico geek myself, but over the years I’ve learned that not everyone’s brain is wired like mine.  There are plenty of people in the world who have a hard time understanding history, and whose brain just shuts down when you try and overload them with names and dates.

            According to the movie’s portrayal, Sarah Palin was one of those people.  She had a lot of enthusiasm for politics, but she didn’t know what the Federal Reserve was, didn’t understand the difference between the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, didn’t know why North and South Korea were two different countries.  And even when these things were explained to her, she had a lot of trouble understanding or remembering the information.

            Sarah Palin also apparently had a couple of mini-meltdowns behind the scenes of the campaign, which caused McCain’s advisors to wonder if she had undiagnosed mental issues (although this question is never answered in the film.)

            Perhaps one of the more interesting parts of the film is how the McCain campaign pulled a minor miracle by getting Sarah Palin ready for the debates.  You may remember that after Palin’s two disastrous news interviews, everyone had expected her to get creamed in the vice-presidential debates, and yet surprising she held her own.

            What was the secret?  It turns out that after trying (and failing) to educate Palin about political issues, the campaign just had her memorize a list of 45 responses, and then a number of segues (or “pivots” as they were called) so that she could redirect any question to one of her pre-memorized responses.  And it was a strategy that worked surprisingly well.  (Although it does make you wonder how often this happens, and just how much of politics is really theater.)

            Although it is understandably why Palin would hate this film (it pretty much kills any of her future political ambitions), the film’s portrayal of Palin is not unsympathetic.  It’s not her fault she has a hard time processing facts—she is who she is and she does the best with the talents she has.

            And although she was arguably unqualified to be vice-president, this wasn’t her fault either.  She didn’t ask for the job.  The McCain people came to her first.  All she did was say yes when her Party called for her service.  The fact that she was never properly vetted was the fault of the campaign, not Sarah Palin.

            For that matter, the film is not overly critical of the McCain campaign either.  In retrospect obviously Sarah Palin was a terrible choice for vice-president, but the film shows how every decision the McCain campaign made was completely logical at the time given the information that they had.

            The film does however raise a number of questions that go through your head as you watch it.

            Like, how unique is Sarah Palin?  Is her ignorance an extreme case, or is this actually very common among politicians?  How many politicians have been able to use their skill at communicating in order to successful hide how little they actually know?

            And how much should a person have to know to be President?  Is being passionate about the issues (like Sarah Palin was) just as important as having an encyclopedic knowledge of foreign policy?  Should the ability to memorize the names of world leaders be a prerequisite to becoming involved in the political process?

            I also wonder a little bit about the sexism issue—not in the sense that the media was too hard on Sarah Palin, but that a male politician might have gotten a free pass on the same thing.

            Ronald Reagan comes to mind as someone who was a great communicator, but whose grasp of the facts was always a bit shaky.  (The film does mention that Reagan once claimed pollution was caused by trees.)

            Also in the 2000 election, George W. Bush was caught out on any number of issues.  You will remember perhaps he confused the Prime Minister of Canada with a French food [LINK HERE].   And you might also remember that back in 2000, it was openly argued that Bush’s ignorance of foreign policy didn’t really matter, because once he became President he was going to be surrounded by the best advisors.

            (I’m picking on Republicans, I know.  Sorry, it’s my liberal bias again.  Feel free to leave the names of exceptionally ignorant Democrats in the comments section.)

*********************************

            At one point in the film, one of the characters makes the comment that 2008 was the first presidential election that took place in the age of youtube.

            I had never made the connection before, but it’s true.  (Amazing how quickly the times are changing—in 2004 nobody had ever heard of youtube, by 2008 nobody could imagine life without it.)

           

            I wasn’t even living in the US during the 2008 election, and yet I was able to see all those Palin interviews repeatedly on youtube.

            Perhaps another reason I got a little bit bored in the middle of the film was because I had already seen it all before, and at this recent date it is still pretty fresh in my mind.

            In this respect, I suspect the film will become more interesting with age as 2008 fades further into the past, and new generations grow up.  (Although by the same token, references to Ted Stevens, Joe Lieberman, Bill Ayers, and Reverend Wright are going to become obscure in the future, but a few missed references aren’t going to spoil the film.)

            Back when we were taking a course on 20th Century American history, Bork, Buma and I used All the President’s Men as a study tool to try and help understand and remember the convoluted drama that was the untangling of the Watergate scandal.

            Perhaps because of that memory, whenever I watch a modern political drama movie, I always imagine history students using it 20 or 30 years from now.

            It will be interesting to see how this movie will age. 

            The sad truth is that more likely than not, it will be completely forgotten in 30 years.  (All the President’s Men is still considered a classic today, but that’s the exception.  There were any number of TV movies about the Watergate scandal that came out during the 70s and 80s and today are just completely forgotten.)

           

            But if this movie is still being watched in 30 years, I imagine it will do a very good job of giving future college students a glimpse of some of the craziness that was the - 2008 -  election.

Update:
I found this video quite interesting



Link of the Day
On Presumption of Innocence