Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, (who was at The Undefeated screening I attended in Chicago last year). His overall takeaway is the one that seems to be forming up as the conventional wisdom about the film—that it will evoke sympathy for Sarah Palin even among her detractors.
She was thrust into a most unusual situation and everyone knows what it feels like to be in over your head. That’s the kind of fairness that will play well to everybody except the bottiest of the Palinbots who will not be able to entertain the notion that she ever was or ever could be in over her head. It seems like the fan club would love the phase where Palin stands up to her handlers. However, in my observation while researching the phenomenon for some fiction I’m working on, the hardcore supporters will discount the whole endeavor if every detail does not play out like a testimonial for canonization.
I’ll add to the list as I run across more reviews. Film and TV reviewers have seen the film, and we can expect more political writers to weigh in after the Washington premiere. Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews have mentioned they’ve already seen it.
Julianne Moore, who plays Palin in Game Change, will be a guest on Morning Joe today.
Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, co-authors of the Game Change book, gave a 55-minute interview to C-SPAN that aired on Wednesday. The video is not embeddable, so you’ll have to go there. The authors have talked about the book on C-SPAN before, but with the HBO movie premiering in a week, it’s very much back in the news.
If you are mostly interested in the juicy Palin bits, as the screen adapters were, skip to 33:00 or so. The whole interview is good, though, and is supplemented by several clips from the 2008 campaign. I enjoyed the book, and think it made sense for HBO to focus on just one of the storylines from it. If it had been a mini series, that would have been a different matter, but for a two-hour movie, some honing in seems appropriate. Of course Palin fans are outraged that HBO had the nerve to adapt only a part of the book. Apparently that particular creative choice should not be allowed.
Check out Halperin’s new Twitter avatar based on a 2010 Archie comiccover.
The media blitz is upon us
Get ready for a packed week of promotion running up to the March 20 debut. Heilemann was on Bill Maher’s panel last night. Howard Kurtz will do a panel about the movie on Sunday.
Update:
Here a take on the movie from David Frum, every liberal’s favorite conservative. He will be on Kurtz’s Reliable Sources program on CNN too, not sure if it will be to talk about Game Change or Limbaugh. He’d be a likely candidate for either or both segments. I shouldn’t link to this dumb Reliable Sources show page. CNN doesn’t have a page of RS video that I can find on its otherwise decent news site.
New York Times article by Brian Stelter, who addresses HBO’s choice to focus only the Palin story
Blog post by Time magazine TV watcher, James Poniewozik. He thinks Game Change is a bad movie but counters Palin’s assertion that it is based on a false narrative by saying he “doubt[s] that every reporter who’s covered the McCain-Palin campaign has falsified things.”
HBO and the net
How about post-premiere scraps for the internet crowd, HBO? Have you thought about trying something special online—like organizing a watch and chat event? (After the Saturday night debut, please; first-time viewers will want to give it their full attention.) Or how about allowing embeds of selected longer scenes, so bloggers can offer teasers as entertainment, not just your promotional trailers?
HBO can tend to the clumsy and greedy in its social media tactics. A few months ago I tried the “Tweet this” feature from the excellent HBO Go iPad app, and was horrified and embarrassed to see that I’d tweeted not a pointer to the program I was watching but a pitch to my followers to download the app. I’m sure I was expecting to send a friendly GetGlue sort of message like “I’m watching [so and so].” But that’s how brands learn what not to do in social, because they will get loud and instant feedback about missteps. Then there’s that all-Flash site of theirs. And pointers from iOS devices take you to the mobile home page—not to the specific page you were trying to read.
But I adore HBO, generally, as TV, honestly I do. It brought me The Wire (David Simon gave it to me), and that’s impacted my life as much as my passion for Jane Austen and George Eliot books, which is considerable.
You have to wonder if HBO is planning for the inevitable pirating of the movie by people who don’t subscribe but really want to see this movie. I hope they’ll go easy on the thieves, realizing they will be mostly extremely interested viewers and prospective subscribers, not resellers. We can’t all afford premium channels, though a lot of us 99ers scrimp in other ways to compensate for the luxury. Scheduling a free access period while the movie is in heavy rotation would serve the channel’s image best in the long run—far better than meting out punishment, or even considering black avenger countermeasures.
A couple of quick thoughts—one promotion idea, one scheduling idea—on Current‘s politics shows:
Ask bloggers to put widgets or free banner ads on their sites. I don’t know if I would, but I’ll bet some of the #FOKers who are bloggers and who have crushes on Keith would do anything. It would be a little like volunteer street teams for bands, or like Palin fans promoting Steve Bannon’s film for him.
Replay Keith, Turks and Granholm in the morning as an alternative to MSNBC’s Morning Joe, especially for channel switchers. I’d click over when the table at Joe’s starts talking about soccer. (This one may be naive. For all I know, Current has lost some of its interest in building the prime time shows and is settling back into its former sweet spot, the documentary.)
On the drive home last night I was a little surprised to hear that the news was sponsored by Current TV. The short tagline allowed in such sponsorships promoted the prime time news shows hosted by Keith Olbermann, Cenk Uygur and Jennifer Granholm. It’s probably a good fit—at least in Chicago and other larger urban markets.
I watch Keith, though I tend to surf during commercials more than I did when he was on MBNBC, checking in on Ed and even peeking in to see what mischief O’Reilly might be up to, and sometimes get waylaid before I get a chance to discover who is the Worst Person in the World.
I don’t care for Uygur‘s and Granholm‘s shows, and I can’t really put my finger on why. The grunge sets are cool, but leave me feeling gritty. Uygur’s lack of journalism background shows. In introducing a recent guest who is a writer for Reuters, he said the reporter worked for “Reuters magazine,” not appearing to know that it’s an old established wire service, now part of an info conglomerate. Granholm, I just don’t know. I like her, like her politics, like that she was governor of my home state. Maybe she will grow into the host role.
Does Current have a shot at breaking through? The NYTimes Media Decoder column in January reported a bright spot: the channel does attract that elusive younger audience that doesn’t “do TV” much anymore. The young audience likes the net, but Current has a problem there; it can’t post full programs to the web because of its agreements with the cable cartel. I don’t really know the business equation but I’d surmise that from the cable companies’ point of view, the channel is just too small to have the clout to get on the channel lineup at all unless it caves to any and all cartel demands, including forcing viewers to watch on the tube. Squeeze-them-‘til-they-squeal deals like those may be history soon, at least we can hope.
Looks like the flap between Keith and the network over GOP primary coverage is over. If you missed the drama, you can catch up on the Hollywood Reporter site. They seem to enjoy covering him. There’s some charm in that. It seems to show a form of affection.
Rachel Maddow talked last night about the Virginia women who organized the dramatic silent protest against the state’s proposed bill requiring ultrasounds prior to abortions. They raised a big crowd and pulled it off on Facebook.
Check out the video of the silent protest. It’s chilling.
The Right uses Facebook to rally the troops, too. American Grizzlies United, a pro-Sarah Palin group, (tries to) supplement its push to recruit GOP national convention delegates on its Facebook page.
Palinistas seem to have a tight Venn diagram of overlapping fan circles which helps the network effect, but each of the circles are relatively small. The synergy sounds loud right in the eye of the storm but its influence never reaches much of the electorate that has long made up its mind about Palin. That’s not to say the groups don’t have a large presence online; it’s just that blogs may be the medium of choice. The Conservatives4Palin website, founded by a blogger who later worked as a communications aide for Palin, enjoys a flood of traffic and an active, lively, passionate and committed community of commenters.
McCain would “continue to have an open dialogue” with the queen of England on the subject [of Britain’s waning support for the war in Iraq].
That’s how Sarah Palin reportedly responded to a Steve Schmidt question during an issues coaching session during the 2008 campaign, according to a Saturday L.A. Times story on HBO’s Game Change movie. It is sure to spread like wildfire across the internet today. The Politico segment on Morning Joe mentioned it this morning (though I don’t see a post about it yet at 7:30 a.m. Central time). John Heilemann, a co-author of the book on which the adaptation is based, was on the Joe Show panel and defended the book’s reporting, calling the work a historical account.
The astonishing addition to the Encyclopedia Palinignorata already is being tweeted at a fair clip. When another MSNBC show mentions it, the tale will get tweeted more often, then another MSNBC show will notice the net buzz and mention it again, because ... that’s how this works.
The incident is one of a few new tidbits about Palin that will be revealed in the movie that were not reported in the Halperin-Heilemann book, according to the Times story. Schmidt confirmed the veracity in an interview. He had to explain to Palin that Great Britain’s prime minister heads the government.
Why will this be a big deal today? 1) It fits a pattern (which is different from a spun-up narrative). 2) We’re dumbfounded to conceive of the idea that the governor of a state would not know something we knew in junior high, if not grade school. Why won’t it matter to many of Palin’s staunchest fans? They may share the same knowledge gaps—and some of them are proud of it.
(You’ll have to forgive my obsession with Palin; I’m writing some fiction that includes a character something like her, and the preoccupation sometimes seeps up to the public surface as I puzzle through how to draw the character.)
I realized today that I may have been subconsciously avoiding watching the recent Frontline program on Wikileaks partly because I just didn’t want to be bummed out, wasn’t in the mood for a somber lecture with emotional audio prompts. Part of Frontline’s formula in explicating a big troubling issue is to dramatically recount all of the warning signs, and they use portentous music and a great grave voiceover announcer to heighten your concern about the topic. I find I don’t care for being manipulated like that anymore.
I started thinking differently about music in film and TV after hearing David Simon talk about why he prefers not to use music to make viewers feel a certain way. I’d never really thought about it before, but once I did I started to resent that type of persuasion—in newly made media anyway. I’m happy to grant exceptions to classics and allow myself to be emotionally led by the score in North By Northwest.
Later: My friend Hil points out that a program in Australia does this too, and that ominous lighting is a part of the effects package.
@Amyloo I also dislike tendency for ominous lighting, like almost interrogation style interview, black shadowy bgd & lighting only on face.
@Amyloo I think it is. Our equivalent #4corners changed to this style & it undermines my respect for them. The info itself usually enough
As a huge fan of several HBO original series, which are eminently rewatchable, I like having access to the complete archives of favorite shows. Comcast’s OnDemand chooses for me—only letting me at selected episodes of selected series, while HBO Go allows me to dip into whichever season of The Wire I might be in the mood for.
I’ve so fully embraced the whole streaming thing that I rarely watch DVDs anymore, and recently switched to the streaming-only plan on Netflix. I’ll choose to watch something that can be seen instantly and without the physical encumbrance of a DVD. In fact, I’ve developed an active avoidance of DVDs. I can’t quite account for this odd behavior when it means I miss watching things I know I would like, but DVDs have become almost distasteful to me.
There’s one thing I miss: listening to audio commentary tracks, and the studios will have to do something about that. It doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to provide a commentary version of selected online videos, and while they’re at it, I’ll take an MP3 of the audio for my commute, please. (I might even pay, a little.) With well-loved movies and shows, I already know what’s on the screen. I can see it in my head. And so often the commentary doesn’t necessarily map to the action anyway.
iTunes helped kill innovation in podcasting
In the early days of podcasting we saw some experimentation with amateur commentaries to videos, and I think Battlestar Gallactica even produced an official audio commentary podcast. But podcasting has settled into a rut just generally. There hasn’t been a lot of innovation in recent years. I blame iTunes’ dominance as a podcatcher, which meant iTunes became podcasting’s Billboard top 100 ranking and a main discovery method, which led to elevating the MSM podcasts, and possibly caused amateur efforts to ape old media style and production conventions.
With the rapid convergence of TV and the web there are opportunities to get creative—with show formats, not just technology. Alternate sound tracks wouldn’t just have to be recorded, either; they could be live. I’ve always thought, for example, that sports fans (guys mostly) might like to hear opinionated, partisan play-by-play sprinkled with obscenities. You know, the way guys talk when they’re watching games together. Especially when they are angry at a coach. Wouldn’t that be fun?
Also, there are a ton of podcasts about TV shows. They could mix it up a little, break from their predictable formats and offer commentary tracks, maybe just on occasion, like for season finales.
Your market may vary, and maybe they’ll dream up some specials by the time Keith Olbermann shows up on air. But upgrading to a higher tier of channels for an extra $16.95 a month isn’t a priority for me, much as I like and admire Keith, so I hope the show is online or they don’t try to prevent fans from putting it online.
Later: Ha! Just realized I wrote “called Comcast” in my headline when I really chatted. Reminds me of my kids saying “Let me show you a song.”
Neat idea: Whitehouse.gov is hosting an “enhanced video” of the live State of the Union speech tonight. Charts and things, I gather.
I may try watching it that way, if only to distract me from watching the VP and speaker. Congress can re-seat itself, that’s fine, but what I really wish they would change is the camera angle or the presence of those two players immediately behind the president. I can never help but watch them deciding when to applaud, and when to really show approbation by standing up to applaud. Drives me nuts.
I’ve been thinking for years that TV shows owe it to fans to properly wind up a story, and I don’t really care how they do it. John Milch could have sent me an e-mail explaining what was going to come next in Deadwood and John from Cincinnati. A radio play would be nice too. Comic book, any medium, really.
Fringe, one of only two shows I make sure to watch every week, will be moved to Fox’s death slot next month, so it doesn’t look real good for a fourth season. Pity too, because Walter is one of the most unique characters I’ve seen on any kind of screen for a long while—a brilliant crazy scientist in his sixties who still loves recreational drugs.
In the case of Fringe they already have a comic book series made mostly to explicate character backstories, so they really should use it to tell us anything at all they have in mind about the future storyline, whether or not they make an attempt to wind up the story in the spring.
Speaking of story, with whatever amount of time they have left, I think something more must be said about Walter’s ownership of Massive Dynamic. He’s one of the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world now, yet he carries on pretty much as he always has. Let’s see some wild spendthrift behavior by Walter. I’m talking islands and towns, space shuttles and zoos.
You know how blogs, news sites and entertainment sites put “Sarah Palin” in a headline (which often also puts the words in the URL) to rack up page views? Liberal, conservative, small blogs, big media—it works for everybody for different reasons.
Well, there’s a fair chance I am completely full of shit, but I think the TLC Channel’s new supplemental site for the Sarah Palin’s Alaska show is purposely courting controversy. The site provides four blogs and a podcast to serve as a newer-media add-on to the traditional network show site. One of the blogs, called Not Taking Sides is the place to talk about politics, because, even though the TV series is non-political, politics are going to come into it, the inaugural post sort of explains.
It makes sense for TLC to do this from a marketing perspective. It’s true that the show is going to be political no matter how it’s positioned so why shouldn’t the very entity that’s creating the buzz get in on some of the discussion action? Negative comments about Palin are not scrubbed, and call me cynical, but some of them almost look like seed comments—they’re too well punctuated and use proper capitalization rules.
Head blogger for the politics section will be Matt Gagnon, Deputy Director of Digital Strategy for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. He’s busy working on a recount, they don’t say whose—maybe Joe Miller’s? So he will show up later.
It’s a funny old world out there in new media land, when commercial interests get in the game and the genuine might be genuine, or it might be a hustle, or might be a little of both.
You have to wonder, though, if Sarah is down with stirring the pot. Admitting there is a political angle runs counter to every description she has applied to the show. She might be OK with it, since the environment is somewhat controlled.
Of course I like the new PBS iPad app. I like all of that socialist media stuff. My car radio dial doesn’t know there is a station other than WBEZ until my younger kid comes home from school and compulsively hits the scan button to drink in the nicheyness of the Chicago music radio market compared to the less specific range of options in his college town.
But about the app. The rage on the right to defund public media suggests that PBS/NPR fans are a sub-culture (that must be thwarted). We may be a “type,” it’s true, but it’s a loose type, and I think the ideal would be a collection of PBS iPad apps carving out more specific niches. Why not make several apps for different communities of interest and bake social media features right into them? I think they could be supported, just as larger radio markets can support more narrowly programed stations.
I might like PBS but I love literary adaptations. An app devoted to Masterpiece classics could allow users to watch the latest productions and talk about them with each other. (Would they be into talking? Oh yes, yes they would.) I may not care much about migration patterns of bison, but fans of Nature would love an app just for them, too.
I wouldn’t be surprised if contributions would flow in, just because people appreciate it when they have been given a space that celebrates their passions and interests and provides an opportunity to revel in their obsessions in the company of like minds. Engagement follows when it’s all about the affinity group in relation to the provider of the media—not just about the provider.
In fact, I really believe that sometime in the not-too-distant future, the “Here is all our stuff” approach will come to be perceived as an egocentric stance. TV “channels” won’t be established by their creators; they’ll be determined or defined over time based on the density of followers on a scatterplot.
This notion of increasing specialization of social media by affinity and interest has been a minor recurring theme of Gillmor Gang discussions in recent months.
The Pillars of the Earth, a mini-series based on Ken Follett’s novel, starts in three weeks on Starz. I subscribed in anticipation, its benefits for me outweighing the embarrassment.
What’s to like?
Lavish $40 million production
Ridley Scott involvement
Matthew Macfadyen
Rufus Sewell
Middle Ages
A cathedral
Not to like? Well… it’s based on trash historical fiction. Ken Follett’s rep has slid from Eye of the Needle days. Pillars and its sequel no doubt took long labor and research, and they show a glimpse of the period that I like to hear about, even if I’m not sure it represents the period accurately. The books also pander to Gothic tastes, kind of a guy’s take on bodice ripping. Follett’s villains have all the subtlety of Snidley Whiplash. (Come to think of it, Ian McShane, who plays Waleran in the series, would make a great Snidley Whiplash.)
I’ll admit I’m not completely immune to the thrill of the Gothic in tiny infrequent doses, though I’m really embarrassed to recognize I like it. As for the mini-series, I figure if a story puts me in even a broken time machine to the 12th century, I’m in, ready to enjoy the good bits and slide the trashy bits over to (alright, over near) the periphery of my judgement.
With the rapid convergence of TV and the web there are opportunities to get creative—with show formats, not just technology. Alternate sound tracks wouldn’t just have to be recorded, either; they could be live. I’ve always thought, for example, that sports fans (guys mostly) might like to hear opinionated, partisan play-by-play sprinkled with obscenities. You know, the way guys talk when they’re watching games together. Especially when they are angry at a coach. Wouldn’t that be fun?
I’ve been thinking for years that TV shows owe it to fans to properly 
But about the 
