“Game Change,” the Jay Roach-directed HBO movie about Sarah Palin and the 2008 presidential race, is an enjoyable, well-made but perplexing film. The book upon which it’s based, “Game Change,” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, is about the entire 2008 presidential race with a large emphasis on the Obama/Clinton Democratic primary battle. Though I enjoyed the movie, throughout the film I consistently found myself asking the same question: why? What is the purpose of this film? Yes, it offers a behind the scenes account of one of the more bizarre vice-presidential selections in recent history but most of its revelations are already in the public sphere. Which leads me to ask again, what is the purpose?
Sarah Palin’s supporters would undoubtedly say that the film is designed to destroy or embarrass her, as if her reputation hasn’t already been greatly eroded; those who admire her still could never be dissuaded by anything so tame as this. And if Sarah Palin is upset by her portrayal in this film, she has no one to blame but herself; the most damning moments in the film come directly from her well-known public gaffes: the Katie Couric interview, seeing Russia from her house, etc. The private moments with Sarah are more humanizing, making her particularly sympathetic when she is with her loving family, watching the incessant mockery of their matriarch on the nightly news.
But while I appreciated seeing a more complex portrayal of Palin than I expected, I found myself wanting more. If it wanted to humanize her, it failed in not humanizing her enough or rather, not explaining her. Why was she so blindly confident in herself? Why did she have no doubts? Why did she lie to the vetters? What made her change from being a “catatonic,” borderline wreck before the VP debate to a confident, power-hungry diva afterwards? There’s a quick scene of her watching the pundits laud her performance as a “win,” simply by virtue of not screwing up, but it’s too perfunctory a scene to offer a satisfying answer. If you're going to try to show a different side of Sarah Palin, you can't go halfway. If the material doesn't exist, then don't hint at it.
The movie tells the events of the McCain campaign’s vice-presidential selection process through the eyes of advisors Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace, played here by Woody Harrelson and Sarah Paulson, respectively. Both actors do strong work with their parts and create sympathetic portraits of career professionals being forced to deal with an unpredictable wildcard. Schmidt, in particular, is the “hero” of this story, inasmuch as there is one, but doesn’t he share some of blame for selecting Sarah Palin? The movie is bookended by Schmidt’s 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper which makes clear that yes, he regrets it. But that, too, doesn’t seem sufficient. What about the mentality of a politico who puts winning over country, particularly hypocritical in a campaign whose motto is “Country First”? Lip service is paid to this idea but too often Schmidt seems put upon, guided by the actions of others, his own culpability minimized. This should come as no surprise, as the movie is told from Schmidt’s point of view, but it still rings false.
Not as false, however, as Ed Harris’ McCain, the one true misfire of this film. Harris is too young, too virile, too heroic and the voice is all wrong. The McCain that Harris portrays is the Maverick, the strapping young pilot on the cover of “Faith of My Fathers” grown older and wiser. Yes, it’s difficult to portray a public figure so familiar to all of us, but he still captures none of the fragility, the bitterness, the short temper of McCain that showed through on the long campaign trail. But perhaps I’m being unfair. Perhaps it’s all a matter of perspective and this film is just presenting McCain as the Republican faithful saw him – the strong-jawed hero – a version with which I may be unfamiliar but is no less true.
Ultimately, the stand-out performance and the one you’ve undoubtedly heard the most about is Julianne Moore as Sarah Palin. While it certainly can’t be considered a “breakout” role after decades of brilliant performances, it’s a sublime performance nonetheless and expect Moore’s name to be called routinely come next awards season. Moore does not play Palin. She becomes her. Though the mannerisms and accent are all there, that this is an embodiment and not caricature is most evident in a brilliant scene during which Palin watches Tina Fey’s portrayal of her on Saturday Night Live. Cutting from Fey – whose “Palin” is widely credited as being among the best – back to Moore, one is struck by just how perfect Moore is in the role, how real she is. You believe (or at least this reviewer did) that you’re watching Palin’s actual reactions.
Finally, a word for my fellow liberals: do not laugh at this movie. The screening I attended was filled with laughter, the audience guffawing with hindsight as McCain’s advisors waxed poetic about the qualities that made Sarah Palin so attractive a prospect for VP. Let’s not forget that even Wonkette loved her before she came under the national magnifying glass. I advise trying to watch this film in its own present, to try to understand how relatively well-meaning people could screw up so horribly, appreciating the events as they happen and not with the knowledge that we’ve gained in retrospect.
Towards the end of the movie, one of the Republican advisors breaks down in tears and admits that they didn’t vote. I thought it was a heartbreaking scene yet everyone around me laughed. Why? I assume it’s because they found the character’s remorse to be disproportionate to what they perceived as a miniscule crime: not voting. But this “no vote” occurred because the character couldn’t stomach having a hand in issuing into power the same person they were trying to foist upon the United States. To me, as someone who thinks elections matter, that’s not funny in the slightest: in fact, it’s tragic. And if you think otherwise, please ask yourself, why?