36 replies to this topic

[NBooth]

Comparing Julianne Moore and Sarah Palin:

[Thom Wade]

I felt Moore did a pretty solid job, tho at times seem to teeter close to that edge of parody. But I found Palin more sympathetic in Game Change than in any of her promotional appearances.


I really enjoyed the performances and thought folks did a terrific job in their roles. It was definitely a compelling watch.

[Nick Alexander]

http://www.breitbart.../Palin 10 HBO 1

Nezpop, take note.

[Thom Wade]

Take note of what? They offered zero proof of the allegation that this was planned to derail a persidential run. It's pure speculation on the part of Big Hollywood. Why should I be willing to accept their cherry picking of who to believe-but feel it is a negative on the part of the filmmakers.

Their continued campaign of trying to paint this as a brutal hatchet job is laughable. Calm? Cool? The movie shows Scmidt flipping out and losing his cool throughout the film.

The film is guilty of showing Palin, McCain and oters as human, with both positive attributes and flaws.

Seriously, why do my conservative friends keep thinking that linking to Big Hollywood is helping their case that Big Hollywood is right about the film? That's like saying Al Gore is right about global Warming Because Al Gore said he was right about Global Warming happening in Al Gore's movie. It is purely circular logic from a site that is expected to see any portrayal of Palin as something other than Amazing Godess as a distortion. I know they see Palin as a mythological hero.

[Nick Alexander]

The article has quotes from people who were there, who dispute the quotes in the film, including the "pro-choice" quote you dispute. And unlike the vast majority of the sources from "Game Change", these aren't anonymous. It disproved your thesis.

I was waiting for a stronger rebuttal from you.

[Thom Wade]

Nick Alexander, on 13 March 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

The article has quotes from people who were there, who dispute the quotes in the film, including the "pro-choice" quote you dispute. And unlike the vast majority of the sources from "Game Change", these aren't anonymous. It disproved your thesis.

Really? My thesis was that the 10 Lies Article did not provide any undisputable facts regarding the abortion bit. Just conjecture. It also does not address any real reason why she did not take the stage with the guy...which nobody seems to dispute, while offering no explanation. Please note...I never said the pro-choice quote did occur. I simply said that "she appeared on stage with Leiberman" is not actually proof she never said it. And I provided an explanation as to why she could have said it and yet still apeared on stage with Leiberman. My overall thesis was that the writer of the 10 lies article was primarily defending their position with mostly opinions and guesses. An that their use of the word "lie" was stretching the meaning of the word. This article does not change that in the least. This article was not part of the 10 Lies article.

Also worth noting in the article I needed to "take note of"? Some of the people offering disputes about portrayals have never seen the film or read the script. They are (as the article notes) "covering their asses."

Most of the commentary in the article are not disputing specific quotes, rather overall portrayals. And anyone who watched the film knows they guy they are villifying (Schmidt) in the article was not presented as calm, cool and collected.

Nick Alexander, on 13 March 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

I was waiting for a stronger rebuttal from you.

I was hoping for something other than yet another link to Big Hollywood from you.

[Nick Alexander]

Nezpop, on 13 March 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Nick Alexander, on 13 March 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

The article has quotes from people who were there, who dispute the quotes in the film, including the "pro-choice" quote you dispute. And unlike the vast majority of the sources from "Game Change", these aren't anonymous. It disproved your thesis.

Really? My thesis was that the 10 Lies Article did not provide any undisputable facts regarding the abortion bit. Just conjecture.

The only conjecture I see are those sources not willing to put their names and their reputations on the line. (Steve Schmidt, the only named source of the Palin chapter in GC, was not there to witness such an event).

Quote

It also does not address any real reason why she did not take the stage with the guy...which nobody seems to dispute, while offering no explanation.

People are disputing this episode actually taking place. Perhaps it did, but she had to cancel for other reasons. Nonetheless, from those who spent considerable time with her, this is just not something Palin would say. It flies in the face of every other episode with her being introduced by the president of N.O.W. and working with others.

Quote

Please note...I never said the pro-choice quote did occur. I simply said that "she appeared on stage with Leiberman" is not actually proof she never said it.

But, to you and your friend, an anonymous person's testimony trumps that of someone who was there, and was willing to put their names and reputations on the line?

Quote

My overall thesis was that the writer of the 10 lies article was primarily defending their position with mostly opinions and guesses.

You would have read that article poorly then. The issue is not pro-Palin. The issue is with the mainstream media pushing a narrative that is simply false, while being forgetful of Obama's lack of experience and Biden's campaign gaffes.

The "Ten Lies" article goes into great detail, saying that the specific events that the film used did not take place, and are proven by verifiable eyewitnesses, including the Secret Service, and easily-google-able Gallup poll stats. Yes, Lies is a big word, but to convey who Palin is, Julianne Moore, Jay Roach, the author of the book and the author of the screenplay, have to do a lot more than just get her mannerisms and accent right--they have to have her say things that she actually WOULD say, and DID say, and not from some person who wanted to stick to a faulty narrative (hence, "lie.").

I'm not saying that any portrayal has to be a hagiography. I'm saying that if Palin has faults, by all means, be accurate in those faults. The people who know Palin--and have seen the film--all testify that this is at best, not accurate, and at worst, a hit job.

Just because you left the screening with a positive opinion of Palin does not change this fact. It would have been better if the film was scrupulously accurate, using ONLY NAMED SOURCES for its basis, and invited Palin to participate fully in the process. If Palin rejects such an offer, hire a screenwriter, director, and actress with GOP credentials to lure her in to dialogue (note that Palin didn't even participate in the hagiography "The Undefeated" last year). If she still didn't want to participate, then SCRAP THE PROJECT.

And those people who you generally dismiss as to not seeing the film? They wanted to, but HBO screened the film in advance solely to everybody--except those who were there, those who would dispute those facts. They did offer to screen it to Palin--but in her house, not in a public setting, where she could make comments. Palin (rightly) refused.

I'm ambivalent on Palin as a candidate. I am far more concerned that, now, a person can be assassinated at will in this country with no warrent or reason, by executive order. But it seems to me that CHARACTER assassination is just fine and dandy with the fans of this movie.

If you have seen the movie, and find merit in it, you owe it to yourself to get the other side of the story, from Palin, from those who worked with her, from her publicly leaked emails. The best advice on controversial storylines is from that great thinker Steven Wright: I got myself a humidifier and a dehumidifier; I put them in the same room and let them fight it out.

ETA:

Quote

I was hoping for something other than yet another link to Big Hollywood from you.

You do realize that you are promoting the flawed "Guilty by Association" argument by saying such nonsense... no?

Edited by Nick Alexander, 13 March 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[J.A.A. Purves]

kenmorefield, on 12 March 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

McCain, on the phone with the man in charge of the vetting asks if Palin is ready to be president and the response is "no." (Actually it is that she won't be by January 20th, which is actually a more damning version of "no.") Yet he picks her anyway. It makes "sense" if by "sense" we mean only from a strategic, tactical point of view--and if the only goal is winning. Sarah Paulson's character confesses that she could not vote for the candidate she was working for. I don't mean this in a confrontational way, but, yes, I think that "stupid" is an apt adjective for running a candidate who has the best chance of winning but that you yourself don't think is qualified for the job.

This is true. It is quite clear that they are looking for a candidate who would help McCain win, not for a candidate who would necessarily make a good president. But, having worked on a few elections in the Washington D.C. area, I can say that this is a normal political way of thinking. The film is ultimately a commentary on the state of politics we have today - including the dismissal of credentialed qualifications over potential pop celebrity status. This is the culture we live in and I don't mind if you use the adjective "stupid" to describe those who accede to it.

kenmorefield, on 12 March 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

I felt like I had (and have had) more respect for John McCain than the film did, and for those who know my politics, that should say something. Persiflage said the film avoids making him into a caricature. I somewhat disagree. Perhaps (but only perhaps) it stopped short of caricature, but it certainly did not, in my opinion, portray John McCain as a serious person or a competent candidate. To give it its due, it did present him as a person of personal integrity in his refusal to invoke Jeremiah Wright and his reluctance to run a negative campaign, though even there, it is somewhat ambiguous as to whether this is tactical decency, principle, or naivete. His response to the woman saying Obama is a Muslim, is portrayed, I think, as coming from a place of shock and bewilderment that people actually think that. I find that an implausible interpretation of historical events. I actually think McCain must have had vast reservoirs of conviction to resist many of the temptations he did for as long as he did. I didn't see anything in Harris's performance that began to explain the loyalty and admiration that many people genuinely seem to have for him.

Ed Harris does make McCain likeable - if anything, his performance sort of puts McCain "above the fray." He doesn't care about partisanship. He doesn't blame anyone, even Palin, when things go wrong. And he's involved in a process that is constantly asking him to do things he doesn't believe in. Harelson's character obviously respects and loves the guy. Part of the understanding at the end of the film is that they've departed from and turned the campaign into something that McCain doesn't believe in anymore. The point where Schmidt has to admit to McCain that he's failed brings him to tears because what he tried to do (even with McCain's assent) actually did go against McCain's principles.

NBooth, on 13 March 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

Comparing Julianne Moore and Sarah Palin:

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EnbS8Z8uKQ"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=2EnbS8Z8uKQ[/url]

It's honestly difficult (except for higher resolution picture quality) to tell which is which.

Nezpop, on 13 March 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

The film is guilty of showing Palin, McCain and others as human, with both positive attributes and flaws.

Seriously, why do my conservative friends keep thinking that linking to Big Hollywood is helping their case that Big Hollywood is right about the film? That's like saying Al Gore is right about global Warming Because Al Gore said he was right about Global Warming happening in Al Gore's movie. It is purely circular logic from a site that is expected to see any portrayal of Palin as something other than Amazing Godess as a distortion. I know they see Palin as a mythological hero.

I think the main problem with most conservative and Big Hollywood criticism or praise of the film is they are obsessed with how accurately the film portrays Palin. I do not believe the film was interested in attacking McCain, Plain or their campaign staff. Instead, the film is a reflection upon the state of modern day politics. What do you do while working on a campaign when you find that pop celebrity culture has overtaken old-fashioned political dialogue? You have a walk a very fine line - and find candidates, unlike Palin, who have both the qualifications and popular charismatic appeal. A fine line that the McCain staff loses track of - but the film is interested in showing you why and how they lose track of it.

Nick Alexander, on 13 March 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

The "Ten Lies" article goes into great detail, saying that the specific events that the film used did not take place, and are proven by verifiable eyewitnesses, including the Secret Service, and easily-google-able Gallup poll stats. Yes, Lies is a big word, but to convey who Palin is, Julianne Moore, Jay Roach, the author of the book and the author of the screenplay, have to do a lot more than just get her mannerisms and accent right--they have to have her say things that she actually WOULD say, and DID say, and not from some person who wanted to stick to a faulty narrative (hence, "lie.") ...

I'm ambivalent on Palin as a candidate. I am far more concerned that, now, a person can be assassinated at will in this country with no warrant or reason, by executive order. But it seems to me that CHARACTER assassination is just fine and dandy with the fans of this movie.

They obviously exaggerated a little. But the exaggerations went to develop the points and questions that it seems like it was the purpose of the film to explore. If you see the film, I think you'd find it difficult to claim that the film was an attack job on Palin. The Palin supporting camp seem to be so focused on whether film portrays her with 100% accuracy, that they've lost sight of what the film is trying to do. Since Palin is an example of a political failure, I doubt they could ever be persuaded to assent to what the film is attempting to do. It's a work of biographical fiction. Most of the dialogue is created from the moments in between those that actually occurred on camera. Julianne Moore's Palin is not a Tina Fey impression of Palin, it's a character that shows us a woman who is very good at some things and very bad at other things - and when what she isn't good at is held up to the scrutiny of the public media spotlight, it hurts her personally. Unless you're watching the film with ulterior motives, when Palin can't explain what the Federal Reserve is to Steve Schmidt, the film is not asking you to mock her, it's portraying the scene as almost tragic.

There are plenty of other political figures in history whose political failures have been portrayed in biographical fiction as tragic. This is to be distinguished from character assassination.

Edited by Persiflage, 13 March 2012 - 01:37 PM.

[Thom Wade]

[quote name='Nick Alexander' date='13 March 2012 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1331659736' post='268614']
I'm not saying that any portrayal has to be a hagiography. I'm saying that if Palin has faults, by all means, be accurate in those faults. The people who know Palin--and have seen the film--all testify that this is at best, not accurate, and at worst, a hit job. [/quote]

The problem is, if one goes just by the BH take (which heavily cherrypicks scenes to sell their points) one would have no idea that it portrays her as a loving generous mother, personable-especially with special needs kids, has a snap photographic memory, etc. I hope somebody makes a hit piece like this about me someday.

[quote name='Nick Alexander' date='13 March 2012 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1331659736' post='268614']

They did offer to screen it to Palin--but in her house, not in a public setting, where she could make comments. Palin (rightly) refused. [/quote]


Her house...that has a TV studio in it. Built by Fox. For whom she is a paid consultant. Yes, she would have no ability to offer public commentary. None. At. All.

[quote name='Nick Alexander' date='13 March 2012 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1331659736' post='268614']

I'm ambivalent on Palin as a candidate. I am far more concerned that, now, a person can be assassinated at will in this country with no warrent or reason, by executive order. But it seems to me that CHARACTER assassination is just fine and dandy with the fans of this movie. [/quote]

No, it is not fine and dandy. I just don't see this as a hit piece. She is not a villain in the movie. This is nothing like that Reagan mini a few years back. Inaccuracies are the domain of all "docudramas". I take any film based on true events with a grain of salt. I just don't assume nefarious reasons for those inaccuracies, either.

I see why Big Hollywood see it as a hit piece, every article comes off as if they are talking about St. Palin and you won't get that from this film. But as one who watched the entire film, I found far more generous to Palin than Big Hollywood is giving the film credit for.

[quote name='Nick Alexander' date='13 March 2012 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1331659736' post='268614']

If you have seen the movie, and find merit in it, you owe it to yourself to get the other side of the story, from Palin, from those who worked with her, from her publicly leaked emails. The best advice on controversial storylines is from that great thinker Steven Wright: I got myself a humidifier and a dehumidifier; I put them in the same room and let them fight it out.[/quote]


Sure. And I have read the competing narratives from people on both sides of the fence. I have also watched interviews with those involved with the film...malicious intent to character assassinate the former Govorner did not really come across. I suppose it is possible...but nothing I have seen from the filmmakers indicate this was motivate by hate.

ETA:
[quote]I was hoping for something other than yet another link to Big Hollywood from you.[/quote]You do realize that you are promoting the flawed "Guilty by Association" argument by saying such nonsense... no?
[/quote]

No, I am reacting to the hypocrisy of an *agenda driven site* complaining about other people's agendas...including some that are made up whole cloth by said agenda driven site. Their proof that this was timed to derail a presidential run is nowhere other than in their imagination. They don't offer proof from anyone... not HBO, Jay Roach, Danny Strong or Woody Harrelson or Schmidt... nothing. It is purely made up on their part.

[Nick Alexander]

Persiflage, on 13 March 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

They obviously exaggerated a little. But the exaggerations went to develop the points and questions that it seems like it was the purpose of the film to explore....Unless you're watching the film with ulterior motives, when Palin can't explain what the Federal Reserve is to Steve Schmidt, the film is not asking you to mock her, it's portraying the scene as almost tragic.

But this is an example of what I'm talking about. How are you to know that this conversation ever happened? It's purely heresay, from a person (Schmidt) who has a very good reason to pin McCain's loss on Palin (and not, say, when McCain followed his advice to suspend his campaign when the market tanked).

I saw some of those interviews. I also saw Ziegler's documentary that went behind the scenes. Did the movie go into the fact that Charlie Gibson deliberately misconstrued her "actual words" by cutting them in half, and phrased it in such a manner so to make it appear she said the very opposite thing she had stated? Did the movie go into Palin's background of her Couric interview, that she had just saw her son off to go to serve in the armed forces?

Again--I'm ambivalent as to Palin's perspective. But I am quite agitated at political biographies that lie, so to prove a point (that is beyond dispute). And the fact that Julianne Moore has a couple of positive scenes doesn't change this fact.

Nezpop, on 13 March 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

The problem is, if one goes just by the BH take (which heavily cherrypicks scenes to sell their points) one would have no idea that it portrays her as a loving generous mother, personable-especially with special needs kids, has a snap photographic memory, etc. I hope somebody makes a hit piece like this about me someday.

So making a movie based on a single chapter in a huge book filled-to-the-brim of unsubstantiated anonymous testimony is NOT cherry-picking?

Quote

Her house...that has a TV studio in it. Built by Fox. For whom she is a paid consultant. Yes, she would have no ability to offer public commentary. None. At. All.

The people in Hollywood who made this film care what FOX NEWS thinks?

Quote

Sure. And I have read the competing narratives from people on both sides of the fence. I have also watched interviews with those involved with the film...malicious intent to character assassinate the former Govorner did not really come across. I suppose it is possible...but nothing I have seen from the filmmakers indicate this was motivate by hate.

So, Julianne Moore's incendiary comments against Palin doesn't count? Or, the fact that producer Tom Hanks is doing the narration of a pro-Obama documentary? Or, the fact that none of the major screenwriters, directors, producers nor actors in the film donated to a Republican candidate? None of this strikes you as odd?

Quote

I am reacting to the hypocrisy of an *agenda driven site* complaining about other people's agendas...including some that are made up whole cloth by said agenda driven site. Their proof that this was timed to derail a presidential run is nowhere other than in their imagination. They don't offer proof from anyone... not HBO, Jay Roach, Danny Strong or Woody Harrelson or Schmidt... nothing. It is purely made up on their part.

I don't think you have to attribute HBO as having a nefarious agenda, but you do have to examine the influence this movie will have in the current election--being released in an election year where Obama's successes are dwarfed by his failures--and not everybody is as smart as you.

You may not like their allegations, but I'm not buying HBO's response to such. Especially when the story they wish to tell exaggerates facts so as to push a narrative, one of which is that an 80% approval-rating state politician was too stoopid and cost McCain the presidency. Even your memory can't be that faulty.

[Thom Wade]

Nick Alexander, on 13 March 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

Did the movie go into Palin's background of her Couric interview, that she had just saw her son off to go to serve in the armed forces?

Yeah. They in fact did.

Nick Alexander, on 13 March 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

So making a movie based on a single chapter in a huge book filled-to-the-brim of unsubstantiated anonymous testimony is NOT cherry-picking?

I did not say it wasn't. But BH is painting the film as a two hour attempt to destroy Palin's run for President...of course, back when they started making the film, she was already discounting the likelihood of running in 2012.

Nick Alexander, on 13 March 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

The people in Hollywood who made this film care what FOX NEWS thinks?

Probably not. However, your thesis was that she could not comment on the movie publically since they offered her a private viewing in her own home. This is a false thesis, as Palin has outlets for public commentary and reaction.

Nick Alexander, on 13 March 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

So, Julianne Moore's incendiary comments against Palin doesn't count? Or, the fact that producer Tom Hanks is doing the narration of a pro-Obama documentary? Or, the fact that none of the major screenwriters, directors, producers nor actors in the film donated to a Republican candidate? None of this strikes you as odd?

Not particularly. You do not have to be a fan of the person you are playing to give a fair or good performance. And again, none of that backs up the idea that this was nothing more than a hit piece timed to derail a presidential run that was not likely even before they went into production. That was a pretty massive "if" to hang all that money on.

Quote

You may not like their allegations, but I'm not buying HBO's response to such. Especially when the story they wish to tell exaggerates facts so as to push a narrative, one of which is that an 80% approval-rating state politician was too stoopid and cost McCain the presidency. Even your memory can't be that faulty.

Gee, thanks.
It is not a matter of not liking their allegations. Their allegations are unsubstantiated hearsay based on no actual statements and random bits of information about the general views of the filmmakers. And the allegations of a former staffer who is being snarky, rather than factual. There is nothing substantial to actually back up their allegations, yet they present it with statements like:

Quote

What more proof does anyone need that "Game Change" was nothing more than a two-hour negative campaign commercial produced by Obama's Hollywood pals? At the time the film was announced and produced, Sarah Palin was considered a likely challenger, and so they set up HBO as their own personal super PAC and set out to destroy her. There simply is no other explanation.

That is not thoughtful and reasoned analysis and criticism...it's paranoid fantasy.

Also...that 80% approval rating(which the movie acknowledges)? Lasted less than a week. It dropped to 69% and got lower. In 2011 she was at a 38% approval rating...it dropped as low as 24%. During the time this film was being made. The idea that HBO and the filmmakers were so worried she would be the Republican nominee (at a time when she was not even saying she was necessarily planning to run-and conventional wisdom among democrats was she probaly would not run) that they made the entire film and spent all that money simply to derail a campaign seen as unlikely to happen? Laughable. And furthermore? An 80% approval rating does not mean a person is smart or well suited for national leadership.

[Nick Alexander]

Nezpop, on 14 March 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

...But BH is painting the film as a two hour attempt to destroy Palin's run for President...of course, back when they started making the film, she was already discounting the likelihood of running in 2012.

That's not true. Palin's camp had created a $2mil, 2-minute ad after filming began, demonstrating her positive strengths. John Ziegler, who had created a positive documentary towards her run, was the first to come out against her running in 2012, and that was a few months before she finally declined. Surely you remember her bus tour last year, which had media outlets following her around?

Quote

However, your thesis was that she could not comment on the movie publically since they offered her a private viewing in her own home. This is a false thesis, as Palin has outlets for public commentary and reaction.

The vast majority of those who do not question the allegations in Game Change are also those who will not look positively upon looking at Fox News. And vice-versa. Your point is negated, unless you solely affirm the positive qualities of preaching to the choir.

Quote

Not particularly. You do not have to be a fan of the person you are playing to give a fair or good performance. And again, none of that backs up the idea that this was nothing more than a hit piece timed to derail a presidential run that was not likely even before they went into production. That was a pretty massive "if" to hang all that money on.

Nope.

Big Hollywood is interested in the fact that the vast majority of those in Hollywood who approve of political films do so to put forth an agenda that is one-sided. The site then demonstrates the power-players behind the big deals, while at the same time demonstrate the numerous projects that were green-lighted that push the left-side of the aisle, while bemoaning the lack of funds for those projects that would push a right-side button.

So a movie about Sarah Palin, which very well could have been made eight years after the fact (like _Recount_ was), which was cherry picked from a big book with anonymous sources, which had the opportunity to use the myriad credible sources that contradicted the source material (and didn't), which had the opportunity to screen the film to conservative review sites in advance (and didn't), in an election year, where one of the major theses that came out is--and correct me if I'm wrong here--"I have a greater appreciation for Palin, but whoo boy she would've been DISASTROUS as VICE PRESIDENT"--in an ELECTION YEAR[!!!], you can draw your own conclusions.

If you disagree with those conclusions, you are free to do so. But HBO has not done anything (like delay the airing of this film), to prove to many of the commentators on that site who will keep printing at evidence that there is a bigger narrative at play.

Quote

Also...that 80% approval rating(which the movie acknowledges)? Lasted less than a week.

I was referring to Alaskans' 80% approval rating, right after she had succeeded in passing a bipartisan state bill that would install an Alaskan gas pipeline. Maybe the film touched upon that, but I doubt it.

Lookie, you saw the movie, you liked it. If you think that the moments behind the public scenes had any credibility behind that, that is a cross you are going to have to bear.

[Thom Wade]

Nick Alexander, on 14 March 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Nezpop, on 14 March 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

...But BH is painting the film as a two hour attempt to destroy Palin's run for President...of course, back when they started making the film, she was already discounting the likelihood of running in 2012.

That's not true. Palin's camp had created a $2mil, 2-minute ad after filming began, demonstrating her positive strengths. John Ziegler, who had created a positive documentary towards her run, was the first to come out against her running in 2012, and that was a few months before she finally declined. Surely you remember her bus tour last year, which had media outlets following her around?

Sure, but even then she played coy. And even the ad was played off as not being an announcement. The bus tour was claimed by Palin as a family trip and she often denied it was for a run in 2012. She was just meetin' her fellow Americans. Now, you might say that we all knew she was testing the waters even if she said she wasn't. But that certainly fits in more with the Game Change Palin than the version touted by the articles on Big Hollywood.

Quote

The vast majority of those who do not question the allegations in Game Change are also those who will not look positively upon looking at Fox News. And vice-versa. Your point is negated, unless you solely affirm the positive qualities of preaching to the choir.

Fox is the most watched news channel according to the ratings.

Quote

So a movie about Sarah Palin, which very well could have been made eight years after the fact (like _Recount_ was), which was cherry picked from a big book with anonymous sources, which had the opportunity to use the myriad credible sources that contradicted the source material (and didn't), which had the opportunity to screen the film to conservative review sites in advance (and didn't), in an election year, where one of the major theses that came out is--and correct me if I'm wrong here--"I have a greater appreciation for Palin, but whoo boy she would've been DISASTROUS as VICE PRESIDENT"--in an ELECTION YEAR[!!!], you can draw your own conclusions.

If you disagree with those conclusions, you are free to do so. But HBO has not done anything (like delay the airing of this film), to prove to many of the commentators on that site who will keep printing at evidence that there is a bigger narrative at play.

The inherent flaw I have in the defense of BH and their narrative is...the people contradicting the book and Schmidt and Wallace and other staffers who back up the negatives of Palin are not automatically moer suspect than the ones praising Palin. The fact is, the defenders have as much to lose and gain. It is like a whistleblower...the company might have evidence of an axe to grind and march out a bunch of people who say the whistleblower is wrong! So, do we just take it as a given that the company and the people they trot out are the truth tellers? It's is as if Big Hollywood thinks the people they are going to are incapable of lying or lack any selfish motive to go after those who continue to suggest there were any problems with Palin as a candidate. Their evidence is more "finding any bit of info that we think can remotely continue our narrative." It is not "just the facts ma'am."

Quote

I was referring to Alaskans' 80% approval rating, right after she had succeeded in passing a bipartisan state bill that would install an Alaskan gas pipeline. Maybe the film touched upon that, but I doubt it.

Actually it did. It was even presented as one of the reasons for bringing her onto the team as vice presidential nominee. (also, the 80% approval dropped down as well)

Quote

Lookie, you saw the movie, you liked it. If you think that the moments behind the public scenes had any credibility behind that, that is a cross you are going to have to bear.

And you have not seen the film, yet accept that BH is accurately portraying it. This is the second time I pointed out that something you assumed was not in the film actually was. I've read the BH articles. I've seen the film. I find BH's approach and claims muddled and biased at best. I am not the one with a cross to bear. Please stop acting like I am the one with my head in the sand, while Big Hollywood is "just presenting the facts".

Listen, there is no point in going on, you are not going to change my mind that Big Hollywood is somehow putting forth sound and reasoned logic here. We're just going to have to disagree. But please stop with the insinuations of stupidity or ignoring the cold hard facts of Big Hollywood's speculations of motives on my part. It is tiring, and certainly does not encourage me to want to dialog with you any further on this or any topic.

Edited by Nezpop, 14 March 2012 - 12:04 PM.

[Nick Alexander]

Nezpop, on 14 March 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

Sure, but even then she played coy. And even the ad was played off as not being an announcement. The bus tour was claimed by Palin as a family trip and she often denied it was for a run in 2012. She was just meetin' her fellow Americans. Now, you might say that we all knew she was testing the waters even if she said she wasn't. But that certainly fits in more with the Game Change Palin than the version touted by the articles on Big Hollywood.

If it was something "we all knew", then no way would she have been followed around as she did by mainstream media outlets as she did. And nobody allows two million dollars to be spent and is also coy. It's either one or the other.

Quote

Fox is the most watched news channel according to the ratings.

Not in Hollywood. Not in New York. Not to those who would agree with its portrayal.

Quote

Quote

....one of the major theses that came out is--and correct me if I'm wrong here--"I have a greater appreciation for Palin, but whoo boy she would've been DISASTROUS as VICE PRESIDENT"...

If you disagree with those conclusions, you are free to do so.

First and foremost, let's get out of the way that you did not disagree with this conclusion, as you did not correct me. Therefore, I hold it to still be a political hit-job, bar none, with some scenes that are borderline caricatures, but also some scenes that are three-dimensional and empathetic.

Next...

Quote

The inherent flaw I have in the defense of BH and their narrative is...the people contradicting the book and Schmidt and Wallace and other staffers who back up the negatives of Palin are not automatically moer suspect than the ones praising Palin. The fact is, the defenders have as much to lose and gain. It is like a whistleblower...the company might have evidence of an axe to grind and march out a bunch of people who say the whistleblower is wrong! So, do we just take it as a given that the company and the people they trot out are the truth tellers? It's is as if Big Hollywood thinks the people they are going to are incapable of lying or lack any selfish motive to go after those who continue to suggest there were any problems with Palin as a candidate. Their evidence is more "finding any bit of info that we think can remotely continue our narrative." It is not "just the facts ma'am."

What I find disconcerting is that both sides needed to be at the table, regardless. But once they had a solid idea of what story they wanted to tell, the sides that were there, and were empathetic to Palin (and were not paid by a "company" to retain some mythic status quo), all of their statements on the record were pushed aside, so to tell the bigger story.

I normally would not have a problem with stories, but because she is a current public figure, one who had been controversial by nature as to who she is, it is imperative that they had to work diligently to get an honest narrative, by people who were willing to go on the record and say something happened. If such an honest narrative is not possible to attain, then they were at risk of lying.

Quote

Quote

I was referring to Alaskans' 80% approval rating, right after she had succeeded in passing a bipartisan state bill that would install an Alaskan gas pipeline. Maybe the film touched upon that, but I doubt it.

Actually it did. It was even presented as one of the reasons for bringing her onto the team as vice presidential nominee. (also, the 80% approval dropped down as well)

So they actually mentioned the Alaskan gas pipeline?

Quote

And you have not seen the film, yet accept that BH is accurately portraying it.

I'm accepting both BH _and_ your opinion. The "Ten Lies" article needed to be mentioned because it is pertinent to the story. The "10-1" article was mentioned (and posted to you), so to prove to you that there was substance behind BH's conviction that the episode moments were, in fact, lies.

You disagree with their conclusions, as is your right. But I find named sources to have far greater credibility than unnamed sources.

Quote

Listen, there is no point in going on, you are not going to change my mind that Big Hollywood is somehow putting forth sound and reasoned logic here.

I think it is imperative for a discussion on this board to discuss the ten allegations put forth by BH writers and testimonialists, if this thread were to continue. I simply don't buy blanket dismissals of sites-you-don't-like, and then move on. If BH's logic is flawed, start at lie #10, and go to #1. Then, start at testimonial #10 and down to testimonial #1. AND... do this on their comments page as well.

If this is a waste of time to you, then I will continue to side with the side that continues with names, and not anonymous sources.

Edited by Nick Alexander, 14 March 2012 - 12:44 PM.

[Thom Wade]

Nick Alexander, on 14 March 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

Quote

Listen, there is no point in going on, you are not going to change my mind that Big Hollywood is somehow putting forth sound and reasoned logic here.

I think it is imperative for a discussion on this board to discuss the ten allegations put forth by BH writers and testimonialists, if this thread were to continue. I simply don't buy blanket dismissals of sites-you-don't-like, and then move on. If BH's logic is flawed, start at lie #10, and go to #1. Then, start at testimonial #10 and down to testimonial #1. AND... do this on their comments page as well.

If this is a waste of time to you, then I will continue to side with the side that continues with names, and not anonymous sources.

First off, I feel this back and forth has chased other folks from the discussion. And to really parse all ten is... well, I cannot see how one avoids turning the thread into as much a political argument as much as any in the politics board...which was shut done. While I sometimes miss the back and forth, I do not want to create work arounds where we hit the same walls that resulted in people feeling the politics board was worth shutting down. Discussing Game Change and the 10 Lies article pretty much requires a broader discussion, because the ten lies article uses post election event to make some points.

On the second point, "using names" is not any guarantee of truth or honesty. It also seems to presume that the other side has only had anonymous sources. There are named people out there defending the movie. Republicans, not Democrats. People who were part of the campaign. The concern that Palin would not be a good president extends far beyond east/west cost Hollywood liberals.

[Nick Alexander]

Not sure if you saw this, but, (yes), there's another article on Big Hollywood that uses video footage and named testimonies to crush the scene where Palin became unstable and catatonic, at wits end.

http://www.breitbart...rushed-by-facts

I do not doubt that such a scene would be necessary to demonstrate a story the writers wished to convey. I also do not doubt that, if people use her catastrophic interview with Katie Couric as evidence, that they can very easily believe such a scene happened in real life. Having not seen the scene in question, looking at this optimistically, it can also very easily put us in empathy for the stresses that Julianne Moore's "Sarah Palin" went thru.

But, the pesky evidences demonstrated in the article really get in the way of taking this with any credibility.

Critics like Roger Ebert, who liked the film, and who also have an idealogical inclination away from the Conservative ideologies , have called Sarah Palin "the greatest actress in politics". I suppose that is how they reconcile how she could have pulled it off. If I use Occam's Razor, then BH's critics and sources win another point.

[kenmorefield]

Todd and I (okay, mostly me), draw some comparisons between Game Change and Primary Colors in a podcast about the latter film.

SHOW NOTES:

• 0:30 – Intro, summary, faith, and disillusionment
• 6:15 – Believing in people vs. seduced by power
• 10:10 – Moral compromises and ranges of character responses
• 21:40 – Timeless themes or timely satire?
• 27:10 – Game Change, good intentions, and believing in what you do
• 33:35 – Media and the false intimacy of television
• 40:10 – If we really believe what we say…