Daily Archives: February 21, 2008

Hillary Clinton, Meet Fork…

Casting an eye away from the big screen, I’d hate to be the one to break this to the Clintons, but — barring some sort of top-shelf political faux pas, nay, utter flame-out, or the sudden disclosure that Barack Obama secretly funded Michael Vick’s dogfighting ring — Hillary’s campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidency is all over but the shouting. Like a “Choose-Your-Own-Adventure” novel of yesteryear, she can pick the gracefulness and specifics of her exit, but it’s no longer a “numbers game” in which she holds any sort of advantage.

Obama’s string of 10 straight primary and caucus wins, and the average, crushing margin of the victories (an astonishing 33 percent), means that Clinton would have to notch 60-plus percent of the vote in delegate-rich Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio — unreasonable gets, to say the least. This virtually guarantees that Obama will hold a significant lead in pledged delegates, states won and total votes (of which he’s picked up one million more than Clinton since Super Tuesday) upon the completion of the main primary cycle.

Of course no politician of substance gets to where they are by just packing it in. But Clinton no longer has any semblance of an effective message to match her iron will. Initially missing the boat on the electorate’s hunger for change is one thing, but the Clinton campaign is now pursuing an equally tone deaf strategy in trying to reverse Obama’s momentum and “drive up his negatives,” in inside-the-Beltway parlance. Since her experiential trump card isn’t working, she’s taken to (understandably) ignoring voting outcomes and (less understandably) treating hope as a piƱata in her recent stump speeches.

“When I think about what we’re really comparing in this election, you
know, we can’t just have speeches, we need to have solutions for America,” Clinton said in one speech in Ohio. “It is time to get real — to get real about how we actually win this
election and get real about the challenges facing America,” she said in another speech. “It’s time
that we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound
solutions
. Americans have a choice to make in this
election, and that choice matters. It’s about picking a president who
relies not just on words, but on work, on hard work, to get America working again for all of our people. We
need to make a choice between speeches and solutions.”

Parsing and attempting to highlight this distinction is something that requires a deft touch — a pinch of good-natured wheedling and a very conciliatory tone. Needless to say, these are not traits that Clinton possesses in abundance. Ergo, this tack, and the repeated use of the phrase “Get real” (10 times in one speech yesterday) is like dumping gasoline on a fire. It’s an argument that doesn’t really hold sway with undecided independents, and it does nothing except piss off and further agitate many of those leaning toward Obama — Democrats, so-called “Obamacans” or otherwise unaffiliated voters — because you’re essentially calling them stupid, questioning the value and judgment of their feelings. And that’s a problem, because a feeling is much stronger than a thought.

Funny Games’ Poster Anything But Funny

The poster for Michael Haneke’s memorably tense Funny Games (Warner Independent, March 14), an English language remake of his 1997 French film of the same name, is a striking, effective thing, I think mostly because we rarely see such rubbed-raw emotion captured in one-sheet form.

Starring Naomi Watts and Tim Roth, Funny Games is a brutal and provocative thriller in which a vacationing married couple and their son get an unexpected visit from a pair of deeply disturbed young men (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet). Rough, nasty times ensue. More thoughts will soon follow, but the movie is basically a fascinating, elongated exercise in de-masculinization.

There are plenty of ways to convey this, of course, but the above one-sheet gets at the off-kilter, uncomfortable artfulness of the picture. The simple, small text of the poster’s sole half-proffered explication
of its story (“You must admit, you brought this on yourself,” a line
uttered chillingly by one of the psychopathic home invaders) catches one’s attention only because of the centering of the text. What we mostly get — via Watts’ disheveled hair, tear-stained “ugly cry” face, and tightly framed, flush-to-bottom visage — is a sense of the teased anxiety the movie has at its core.

Sarah Polley Is Not Dumb

Smarter-than-her-years Sarah Polley certainly doesn’t need my help securing work, but John Horn’s recent feature piece, from February 17’s Los Angeles Times, proves that the actress turned director, Oscar nominated for her adapted screenplay for Away From Her, gets it, and is no one-flick fluke behind the camera.

In discussing her preparation for the movie, Polley makes remarks that are illustrative of why (really smart, attentive) actors often make good
directors
, for many of the same reasons that catchers make decent
managers in baseball. “I’ve spent a lifetime working with disorganized first-time filmmakers
who don’t get the support of their crew because they feel they are
wasting their time,” says Polley in the interview. “And I knew how badly I needed their
support. You know as an actor so acutely what destroys morale, what
creates complaints
, and that can be good and bad, because when you’re
directing you can become hyper-aware of that. I think that what
a lot of first-time filmmakers don’t realize is that they are the least
experienced person on that set
. Everybody else has been doing their job
for years, so the whole act of playing the filmmaker, playing the
person in command, is a charade. So the best you can do is work your ass off and admit what you don’t know, and ask for help when you need
it.” Succinctly put, and spot on.