Film Review: Game Change

 "Game Change"

  *** 1\2 (out of ****)

 For the last two years longtime readers, which I am willing to bet good money doesn't exist, may have noticed I no longer review current releases and primarily stay away from movies with a whiff of politics. At the same time though I don't want to seem completely irrelevant and not acknowledge the world around me. We are in the midst of a political election with voting day a mere three days away - not counting the millions of early votes already cast. The idea came to me, how about reviewing something related to politics? And for reasons I honestly can't explain, "Game Change" (2012) immediately came into my head.

"Game Change" was a made for television movie that premiered on HBO in March of 2012, which was also a presidential election year. As usual the right-wing media and political figures dismissed the movie - without seeing it in many cases mind you - as a "hit piece" on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. It was an example of left-wing biased in Hollywood in their view. 

I saw "Game Change" back in 2012 largely because of my tremendous admiration for actress Julianne Moore, whom I believe is one of our finest. I was a bit skeptical however about her playing Gov. Palin and actually felt Tina Fey - who had been impersonating the governor on Saturday Night Live - should have been offered the role. Upon first viewing "Game Change" I didn't like it very much. It glossed over too much during the historical 2008 presidential election that would come down to - after the primaries - Republican Arizona senator John McCain and freshman Illinois senator Barack Obama. The film focuses on the election exclusively from the perspective of the McCain campaign. And because of that limited scope I thought they minimized the story. The film, based on a book, of the same title, published in 2010 by reporters John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, should have broaden up a bit. We didn't see enough from John McCain's point of view. We didn't get a sense of the historic nature of that election, in electing the first black man as the country's president.

However rewatching "Game Change" my interpretation of the film changed as the world has changed since the release of this film. It now belongs among a list of prescient films such as Sidney Lumet's "Network" (1976) and Kazan's "A Face in the Crowd" (1957) in predicting  the degenerate slide of the country and our politics namely thanks to the former reality television host turned politician Donald Trump. In fact it is difficult, nearly impossible, to watch "Game Change" today and not think of Trump. But the seeds for the eventual demise of the Republican party were all right before our eyes in "Game Change".

And that is how I now approach "Game Change". It isn't so much about Gov. Sarah Palin as it is a look into our political system and the type of figure it takes to reach the masses. Politics isn't about policy and ideas. It has morphed into cult of personalities. Ronald Reagan had a touch of that as did Bill Clinton but it almost seems quaint now. In typical Hollywood fashion, we took the classics and decided they needed to be updated for modern audiences. That usually means you sleaze it up and add gratuitous sex and violence. And voila you have Donald Trump. But don't kid yourself, followers of Barack Obama were equally part of a cult of devotion. Granted, those Obama supporters of 2008 were not near the unhinged violent nature of today's Trump supporters, but both figures have reached messiah levels of worship. Of course, Trump supporters took it ten steps further and made pronouncements that the ol' Donald is Heaven sent and the current election is the modern day equivalent of a holy war, as they make biblical references to Democratic nominee Kamala Harris as a Jezebel - a power hungry, violent, promiscuous woman.  

As "Game Change" begins, John McCain (Ed Harris) is doing poorly in the Republican primaries. Not gaining much support McCain is told by strategist Steve Schmidt (Woody Harrelson) he needs to go back to his old maverick ways. McCain agrees and would like Schmidt to join his campaign as a top advisor. The film then immediately jumps to images of McCain winning various primary contests and securing the Republican nomination. Then the real struggle begins. How do they beat the phenomenon known as Barack Obama? The media, in particular CNN, practically salivate over Obama. McCain can't match Obama's popularity. Why is a senator, of no particular accomplishment, beating McCain in the polls? It frustratingly leads McCain to muse, does the country want a statesman or a celebrity? And thus the famous "Celeb" campaign ad is created. It is the first step the McCain campaign took to change the narrative of the election. It was a risky move however as it was widely interpreted as McCain going negative. 

This becomes a theme of the film. How does one create a balance in politics between being honorable and winning an election? McCain at one point says he lost himself because of his desire to win. But it wont be the last Faustian bargain McCain and his campaign will have to make in order to compete with Obama. McCain's choice for a vice-president will need to be a game changer. A buzz needs to be created around McCain and selecting any of the possible candidates - Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, or even Democrat Joe Liberman - won't be beneficial to him. Not to mention there is a wide gender gap that must be closed. McCain is losing the female vote to Obama by as much as twenty percent. A female VP pick could potentially change that.

Blamed on a shortened vetting process of five days, and perhaps even subconsciously turning a blind eye to possible red flags, the campaign pushes for McCain to select a relatively unknown Alaskan Governor named Sarah Palin (Moore) as the VP nominee. The selection appears to give the McCain campaign the spark they were hoping for. Conservative media figures declare Palin could be the next Reagan. She speaks to voters in a way other politicians hadn't. But the cracks are soon on display. She doesn't know much about policy and history. It needs to be explained to her for example Queen Elizabeth II is head of state not head of government. The differences between the Iraq War and Afghanistan need to be explained as well as that Saddam Hussein was not behind the September 11th attacks. Not to mention the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. This opens up the McCain campaign to criticism since it's slogan is Country First. Is Sarah Palin prepared to be president if something should happen to the then 72 year old McCain? Was this selection a country first decision?     

"Game Change" makes some comparisons between Palin's popularity and Obama's but not nearly enough and not forceful enough either to illustrate what this all means and the collapse of American politics. Politicians like Sarah Palin, Barack Obama or Donald Trump don't have to know anything or have experience - remember Trump is a man that infamously said, "nobody knew that health care could be so complicated" - because there will be a media apparatus behind them - right or left - that will do the spin for them to prop them up and legitimize them. The spectacle is what is important. All style and no substance.

For Schmidt and Nicole Wallace (Sarah Paulson) all they can do now is try to coach and guide Palin to a level of "acceptability" by preparing her for interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric and her VP debate with Joe Biden through cram sessions. But Palin proves difficult to handle and succumbs to mood swings, leading some within the campaign to question her mental capabilities. Palin feels overwhelmed by the information being thrown at her and like earlier with McCain begins to feel she is losing herself. The best thing the campaign can do is let Sarah be Sarah.

Despite my initial apprehension of Julianne Moore in the role, Moore does deliver a very good performance. It never feels like a caricature of  the real Palin, the way Tina Fey would perform it. In Moore's hands Palin is an innocent woman dragged into the national political arena. An arena she was not prepared for. Soon however the media spin and the large crowds get to her. She believes the hype as illusions of grandeur set in. She is the one to crowds are coming to see. She is the reason fundraising has picked up. She is the reason there is excitement on the Republican side. She is more important than John McCain. It all plays out similar to "A Face in the Crowd" and turns Palin into something of a tragic figure. A woman who rose to the top quickly and crashed just as fast. In her New York Times review Alessandra Stanley called the performance, "a sharp-edged but not unsympathetic portrait of a flawed heroine, colored more in pity than in admiration."

Within that desire to achieve fame, Palin feeds on the simmering hate and hostility in the political crowds. As she blasts Obama, supporters lash out and snarl calling Obama a "socialist" and a "Muslim". The anger from the crowds doesn't phase her but it makes McCain uncomfortable. Schmidt even tells McCain they need to lay off  mentioning Obama's name, leading to the famous moment when McCain had to correct a woman in an audience that Obama was not a Muslim but a good man with whom he just had differences with. Today we couldn't even imagine Donald Trump speaking out if his supporters became unruly towards Harris. He's the one inciting the anger!

Through these moments "Game Change" focuses on a contrast between Palin and McCain. Unfortunately for Ed Harris, the film gives him little to do. The central character in this film is Sarah Palin not McCain. Look at the film's poster. It is Palin that is front and center not McCain. Therefore Harris slips into the background and while he gives an adequate performance he never made much of an impression on me. I didn't feel Harris really captured John McCain either. Performance wise the film belongs to Moore with Woody Harrelson coming in second. Harrelson's Schmidt I believe has more screen time than Harris' McCain.

The film was directed by an unusual choice, Jay Roach, a director probably best known for his comedies such as all three "Austin Powers" movies and "Meet the Parents" (2000). Perhaps like Sarah Palin, he too was ambitious and has tipped his toe into serious political films such as "Recount" (2008) which was also a made for television film airing on HBO, about the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush and the Florida recount that followed. He followed that up with "Trumbo" (2015) and "Bombshell" (2019). He tried to combine politics and comedy with the disastrous "The Campaign" (2015).  

"Game Change" did well critically earning twelve Daytime Emmy nominations, winning four, included among them one for Moore's performance, Roach's directing and Danny Strong's screenplay. Harrelson, Harris and Paulson were also nominated for their work. In addition "Game Change" went on to earn five Golden Globe nominations and once again Moore won for her performance as did Ed Harris. While also winning the award for best miniseries or motion picture made for television.

While the acting and directing is done well in "Game Change", I do want to point out the fact that this was a made for television movie is noticeable in the budget and technical quality of the film. In order to give the film a sense of authenticity "Game Change" does incorporate real footage into the film. For example in a sequence involving Palin's speech at the Republican Convention. The audience can instantly see the difference between the real footage and the film. This isn't done as seamlessly as in "Forrest Gump" (1994) for example. This most likely is due to it being a TV movie. This would have looked much better as a Hollywood motion picture. It leads one to wonder why wasn't it one? It could also explain the glossing over of events and limited scope.

Even though "Game Change" is in many way a product of its time, it lands a much harder punch watching it today. It hits on so many facets of today's politics it can be eerie. Palin is presented as a candidate that flat out lies with little regard for the truth. She cannot be handled by her advisors and repeatedly "goes rogue". McCain warns his staff in one scene about the "dark side of American populism" when his campaign wants him to attack Obama because of Rev. Wright. Palin is a creation of the right-wing media that had already exhibited ugly tendencies a la Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Pat Buchanan, and the henchmen at Fox News. There is even a scene about presidential concession speeches and what it represents regarding the peaceful transfer for power!

For many of us that lived through the 2008 presidential election - it was my second time voting for president - we may not have realized it but it was the beginning of a turning point in Republican politics, that had already turned into a circus during the Clinton-Lewinski scandal. "Game Change" tells us in order to succeed in American politics you need movie star charisma and a lot of hate in the electorate that can be tapped into and exploited by the right politician.

Throughout the year on this blog the running theme has been Was I Right? - my look back at films I placed on various annual top ten lists to determine if I was right to choose them. I didn't place "Game Change" on my 2012 list which wasn't necessarily a mistake but I was wrong not to give this film more credit and see beyond its portrayal of Sarah Palin and view it as not only an indictment of U.S. politics but a warning of the type of politician that could emerge. In Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review of the film, he described Palin by writing, "She may have been a bad candidate but she was a brilliant campaigner, astonishing the staff by her ability to save situations that looked perilous to them." Time and the country's degenerate downward spiral has ultimately improved "Game Change" as a meaningful political film with a keen insight.