Notes on Pop Culture: New Flicks 'Friends With Kids' & 'Game Change'

I really liked Jennifer Westfeldt's new film, Friends With Kids about two best pals who decide to have a baby together, a movie in which Westfeldt starred, as well as wrote and directed.

In my review of the movie -- which also stars Adam Scott from Parks & Recreation and features Bridesmaids alums Maya Rudolph, Kristen Wiig, Jon Hamm and Chris O'Dowd-- I compared it to When Harry Met Sally, only with a whole lot more profanity and a bunch of kids running around. This comparison is a good thing because a) I love When Harry Met Sally and b) When Harry Met Sally is a classic. An excerpt of the review on CliqueClack Flicks:

"Friends With Kids is a sharp indie which offers insight, humor, heart and a really nasty Jon Hamm scene without ever veering into garden variety, rom-com slop territory. It's a film that sincerely dramatizes how parenting can alter a relationship and how wading through the happy, maddening and messy moments of child-rearing can make or break a couple.

. . . Amidst the occasional ugliness and bouts of heartbreak, Friends With Kids actually winds up delivering a charming message about parenting, romance and the joys of sharing a life with someone, even when your kid gets explosive diarrhea all over you and the wall. The parenting experience can forge a bond between partners . . . or send the fleeing in the opposite direction. It also puts to the test Billy Crystal's famous When Harry Met Sally adage, 'Men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.'"

If you're in the mood for a funny and poignant film that takes a hard look at the impact of parenting on romance and relationships, this film is for you.

Meanwhile, HBO is premiering its original film Game Change this weekend. Your opinion of this rendition of Sarah Palin's selection as John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential campaign will depend upon your political leanings. If you're a Democrat and don't like Palin, you'll cackle throughout the film and have a blast watching her make gaffe after gaffe (oh, that Katie Couric interview) and see her admit that she didn't know why the United States had troops in Afghanistan. If you're a Republican and like Palin, though there are a few moments featuring the positives Palin brought to McCain's ticket (stupendous convention speech, solid debate performance, increased donations and huge bump in attendance at rallies), it's hard to overlook the film's meta-message that Game Change pounds home in between a handful of sympathetic Palin scenes: Palin had no business being picked; she was incompetent, emotionally unstable and, at times, imperious.

I've lamented on this blog on a number of occasions the negativity and condescension to which political women are subjected in the media and this movie is no exception to this unfortunate trend. But the fault lies in the source material, Game Change the book which villainized all the women in the book from Palin to Hillary Clinton, from Cindy McCain to Elizabeth Edwards. Only Michelle Obama emerged from that bestseller relatively unscathed.

That being said, Game Change's acting was top-notch. Julianne Moore was perfection and I didn't know Woody Harrelson had it in him to make me forget that it was Woody playing a high-powered political consultant. No matter your political leanings, Game Change is an entertaining ride, though if you're of the Republican/Palin fan ilk, you'll likely be indignantly fired up the movie's end. If you're of the mind that female politicians get a raw deal in the media, you may well be as fired up as the Republicans. My review of the film can be found here.

Image credit: Phillip V. Caruso/HBO.

Notes on Politics: 'Game Change' Clip Blames McCain's Loss on Palin, First Ladydom's No Picnic

Seriously HBO?

You folks are planning on releasing a movie that blames Sarah Palin, after shredding her and making her look unstable, for John McCain’s loss to Barack Obama in 2008? That’s how it looks based on the latest trailer for your film Game Change.

I was certainly no fan of the book Game Change, which chronicles the 2008 presidential campaign, even though I’m something of a political junkie. My intense distaste for how the book depicted -- villainized, really -- nearly every woman in the book (Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Edwards, Cindy McCain, Hillary Clinton, Judith Giuliani, all but Michelle Obama), has been the focus of blog posts and columns since the book's release in 2010.

When the first, short glimpse of HBO’s take on the book was released in December, I was very wary. And now that I’ve seen a longer trailer – set to The Guess Who’s “American Woman” -- I’m ticked. It appears, if you go by the trailer, that the film will scapegoat Palin and make her look like a narcissistic nut job who torpedoed McCain. In other words, it’ll be a continuation of the kind of garbage that the book heaped upon its female subjects.

Take Palin’s politics and put them aside for a moment and try to imagine for a moment that you’re an ambitious, self-made governor of Alaska and you get the phone call asking you to be a presidential candidate’s running mate. You’re going to say yes. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Palin was fresh, hadn’t been on the national scene, she’d recently had a baby and was the first Republican woman nominated for the post, so she sparked intense intrigue.

Then she was promptly and savagely eviscerated. Everyone from pundits and columnists to people on the street said she had no business campaigning when she had a baby and that she should be home with her kids. Some online writers peddled in sinister rumors suggesting that she was never pregnant and that she faked the pregnancy to cover for her teenage daughter's pregnancy, a daughter who, as it turned out, had accidentally gotten pregnant. And Palin was lampooned for agreeing to run while her unwed teenage daughter was pregnant. Like the chance to be the first female VP would come a-knocking again.

There was a vicious gender thing going on with Palin where people just seemed to seethe with a burning hate for her during her two months+ (felt like longer) as the number two on the Republican ticket, hate based more on her as a person than her beliefs. Attacking her on policies, on the issues, on ethics, all totally fair. Attacking her as a mother, as a wife, belittling her as a sex object and that was all out of line.

Yet this film – with scenes of Palin lying on the floor of her hotel room in a bathrobe with debate prep note cards lying all around her, mumbling about missing her baby and sleeping with her baby in front of people, smiling at her reflection in the mirror after donning a series of different outfits -- promises to skewer her all over again, mostly because of her gender.

Here are things that came out of the mouths of top McCain aides in this short clip about Palin:

• I’m not sure how much she knows about foreign policy.”
• “Oh my God, what have we done?”
• “She’s on the verge of a complete nervous breakdown.”
• “I can’t control her anymore.”

Why not just have someone suggest she be placed in a fainting chair and say she has the vapors? Come on people. Where’s the footage of McCain’s crazy, weird smiling that freaked people out? How about displays of his infamously profane streaks of anger and his sounding like the cranky old guy yelling at the kids his front lawn? Where’s the depiction of his moronic idea to “suspend” his campaign in light of the 2008 economic crisis in order to go to D.C. and save the day like a senatorial Superman? McCain owns the lion’s share of his loss as he faced Obama’s inspiring oration and ground-breaking candidacy. Yet the book and, it seems, the movie, wants to lay the blame on Palin’s lap or, at the very least, make her look like some daffy dame.

The last line of the clip features Palin whispering into a man's ear, “Ya have to win this thing. I so don’t want to go back to Alaska.” Cue the dramatic music. Yeah, blame the chick. It’s all her fault, just like all the women caricatured in Game Change were at fault too. This is just, what’s a good phrase here . . . ah, I know, pious baloney.

One of Politics' Crappiest Unpaid Gigs: Being the First Lady
Speaking of women in the media, my latest Pop Culture and Politics column is based on another political book, The Obamas by Jodi Kantor and how, after reading Kantor’s account of the Obamas’ experience in the national spotlight, I’ve come to the conclusion that being a first lady really sucks:

“If you are a woman who a) has ambition b) is educated c) has a profession that you like d) want to actively be engaged in public policy issues (and have the experience/expertise to do so) e) want to be free from non-stop harassment about everything from your clothing and parenting, to your vacations and relationship with your spouse, then living in the Oval Office as the first spouse would be a crappy job for you.

No way would I want to be standing in Michelle Obama's shoes, even if they happen to be pricey designer pumps and she has a household staff that cooks, cleans and carts her kids around. (I could use a staff, but I'm not willing to pay the price that she's had to pay for it.")

Image credit: Amazon.

A Glimpse of HBO's 'Game Change' ... I'm Not Optimistic

When I finished reading the best selling book Game Change, which chronicled the behind-the-scenes exploits of the 2008 presidential campaign, I was pretty steamed. Now I’m a political junkie and love books about campaigns. I read Richard Ben Cramer’s behemoth What It Takes (1,072 pages) about the 1988 presidential campaign . . . twice. Thought it was brilliant. Some folks have likened Game Change, by veteran journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, to Cramer’s book. So why did Game Change irk me? It demonized the women who were depicted as toxic, irrational villains.

In the Pop Culture and Politics column that I wrote in 2010 after reading Game Change, I lamented, “The men – [John] Edwards, Barack Obama, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Rudy Giuliani – were portrayed as feisty, profane, inspiring, cocky, narcissistic, messianic, shallow, phony and occasionally ill-tempered, although when their anger was discussed it seemed to be of a variety that didn’t warrant a bunch of florid, patronizing adjectives, as if such behavior is the norm while the women’s behavior is the aberration.”

“When it came to the two female candidates – Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin – and the female spouses of the candidates (with the exception of Michelle Obama), they were frequently described with negative, female-centric put-downs and held to starkly different standards,” I added.

Hillary Clinton was described as “bitter,” “befuddled” and had “a staggering lack of calm or command.” After Obama clinched the nomination, Clinton was painted as “somber, prideful, aggrieved, confused – and still high on the notion that she was leading an army, Napoleon in a navy pantsuit and gumball-sized fake pearls.”

Sarah Palin was compared to Eliza Doolittle and The Wizard of Oz’s Dorothy. She was described as having a “hissy fit” and a “conniption,” and being a “big-time control freak.” She was called “mentally unstable,” having been in a “catatonic stupor” during debate prep, in addition to being “a hick on a high wire.”

Cindy McCain, ridiculed as a cold “beauty queen,” was a bawling mess who was, at one point, described as having “flounced back to Phoenix.”

The now-deceased Elizabeth Edwards, who was suffering a relapse of breast cancer at around the same time she learned that her husband had been messing around with another woman, was “an abusive, intrusive, paranoid, condescending crazy woman. Who was “prone to irrational outbursts.”

So when I learned that HBO had bought the rights to the book and was planning on making a movie based on it (set to be released in March starring Julianne Moore as Palin, Ed Harris as John McCain), I wasn’t thrilled.

I’ll be happy if the filmmakers opt to provide a balanced look at all the players in the 2008 campaign, regardless of gender. But if they are very faithful to the book, I fear the results will be nothing more than demeaning, sexist schlock as seen through the eyes of men. Let’s hope I’m wrong. It's hard to tell what the film will be like based on the short teaser that HBO released this week.

Image credit: Amazon.

Notes on Politics: 'Game Change' Caricatures the Women in the 2008 Presidential Election

While the nation's political chattering classes are busy buzzing about Republican Scott Brown's "epic upset" (I've seen this phrase in many news stories) over Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race to fill the remaining term of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, it's worth taking a step back from the day's news (and the woefully inept Coakley campaign which blew a substantial lead and had once been considered a lock) and looking at how women in and around national politics are treated by the media.

I spent the bulk of last week plowing through the lengthy and riveting expose of the 2008 presidential election, the best selling Game Change, written by two journalists who declined to reveal who they interviewed for their book and who gave them what pieces of information. (That, to me, is problematic from a journalism ethics point of view, but that's grist for another rant on another day.) When I was done reading the book, I was so steamed about how the women were treated that I dedicated my Pop Culture and Politics column to it. With the exception of Michelle Obama, the female spouses of the candidates and the two female candidates -- Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin -- were described in an abysmal, sexist fashion. One had her reactions to bad news stories about her family labeled "hysterical" and another was dismissed as being a "beauty queen" who "flounced" back home after a disagreement with her husband, that's when she wasn't said to be weeping. One woman was depicted as having "hissy fits" and "conniptions," while another was maligned (guess which woman) as "Napoleon in a navy pantsuit and gumball-sized fake pearls."

Adding to my irritation were the cartoonish illustrations which accompanied a Game Change excerpt published in New York Magazine which portrayed Elizabeth Edwards as a monster (in one image, one of her hands was curled up so that her fingers looked like claws as spit came out her mouth), John Edwards' mistress was a smitten flirt and John Edwards himself was shown shouting and then sweating as news of his affair broke. Elizabeth Edwards, by far, came out looking the worst.

After taking this all in, I had to wonder: Were the authors simply relating the viewpoints of the blabber-mouth, disloyal former campaign aides who dished about these women, or were these words selected independently by the reporters and reflect their own opinions? Or, frighteningly, both?

Image credit: Nathan Fox/New York Magazine.

Notes on Politics: 'Lost' State of Union, Political Book Takes on Rage, Egos, Race and Infidelity

Lost State of the Union Address

There was quite a bit of consternation in them there internets last week about the possibility that White House officials would schedule the State of the Union address on February 2, the date of the Lost season premiere. Appalled Lost fans started tweeting and including the hashtag #NoStateofUnionFeb2.

Once it was announced by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs that while they didn’t yet have a date picked for the annual address he could assure folks that it won’t be on February 2, one of the Lost co-creators, Damon Lindelof posted a tweet, “OBAMA BACKED DOWN!!! Groundhog Day is OURS!!!!!! (God Bless America).”

Lindelof’s colleague Carlton Cuse, joked about the hullaballoo by posting this tweet, “In exchange for moving his speech Damon [Lindelof] and I promise to answer ANY questions the President has about LOST.”

On a more serious note, the campaign finance think tank Center for Responsive Politics suggested that the contributions of “people and political action committees associated with Walt Disney” totaling in $430,000 helped Disney make their case to secure February 2 for Lost.

Political Book Portrays Elizabeth Edwards’ Temper, Hubby’s Ego

Political reporters John Heilemann and Mark Halperin have dug into the political mud fairly deeply to unearth some damning, behind-the-scenes portraits of the major 2008 presidential candidates and those folks with whom they surrounded themselves with. The results are in Heilemann and Halperin’s new book, Game Change.

Among the revelations that’ve garnered mucho publicity in the past few days is the derogatory depiction of the Edwardses excerpted in this week’s New York Magazine entitled, “Saint Elizabeth and the Ego Monster.” (John Edwards’ mistress Rielle Hunter must be raising a champagne glass.) Characterized in the most extremely negative light possible, Elizabeth Edwards was portrayed as an exceptionally difficult person with whom to get along, with campaign aides referring to themselves as “battered spouses” for having to deal with her:

“With her husband, she could be intensely affectionate or brutally dismissive. At times subtly, at times blatantly, she was forever letting John know that she regarded him as her intellectual inferior. She called her spouse a ‘hick’ in front of other people and derided his parents as rednecks. One time, when a friend asked if John had read a certain book, Elizabeth burst out laughing. ‘Oh, he doesn’t read books,’ she said. ‘I’m the one who reads books.’”

John Edwards didn’t come off well either, as he was described as a deluded ego-maniac who thought he could just breeze through the campaign while screwing around and lying about it. The book excerpt said:

“Yet it was [John] Edwards who stepped so far across the line that his career and life were reduced to rubble . . . Edwards’s story is equally, lastingly resonant: an archetypal political tragedy in which the very same qualities that fuel any presidential bid—ego, hubris, vanity, neediness, a kind of delusion—became all-consuming and self-destructive. And in which the gap between public façade and private reality simply grew too vast to bridge.”