New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Last year, Meryl Streep won her third Oscar for her portrayal of one of the most famous and polemic political figures in the history of Great Britain. Her performance as Margaret Thatcher was lauded for its authenticity, emotion, and flair, even as the film itself was criticized for failing to tell Thatcher's story in a compelling way. Streep was the frontrunner for the award almost from the day it was announced that she would star in The Iron Lady. Playing a famous historical figure is one of the most obvious ways to please the Academy, and Jamie Foxx, Helen Mirren, and Cate Blanchett all won their first Oscars for giving a hybrid impression and performance.

This year another famous actress, one who might be compared to Meryl Streep in terms of talent, versatility, and prestige, starred in a film based on a true story. She played one of the most famous and polemic political figures in the history of the United States. Her performance is being similarly praised by critics both for how accurate it is and how much emotion she brought to the part. And unlike The Iron Lady, this film is receiving rave reviews from everyone except the people it is about. But for some reason this actress is not in the conversation for any Academy Awards because the Academy refuses to allow the film she is starring in to be nominated for any Oscars.

Last night I got around to watching Game Change, based on the book of the same title about the 2008 presidential election. While the book focuses mostly on the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, the film shifts the focus away from the Democrats to the Republicans. It explores John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, a choice that his campaign advisor Steve Schmidt helped him make, and the ways in which Palin both helped and hindered McCain's prospects. I suspect the decision to make the film mostly about Palin was partially because she is such a fascinating and contentious figure, and partially to invoke schadenfreude in HBO's liberal viewers. Palin, McCain, and Schmidt are played by Julianne Moore, Ed Harris, and Woody Harrelson, all of whom have been nominated for multiple Oscars, but none of whom have won.

The film was extremely well received upon its airing on HBO, with much of the praise being directed towards Moore. Roger Ebert wrote that Moore “conveys the essence” of Palin, and Allessandra Stanley wrote in the New York Times that Moore “plays the candidate with surprising finesse. This is a sharp-edged but not unsympathetic portrait of a flawed heroine, colored more in pity than in admiration.” I could cut and paste more than a dozen other superlatives heaped on Moore (the film has a 74 on Metacritic) but you get the point, and if you've seen the film, I'm sure you agree. Moore gives quite possibly the performance of her career, at least on par with her Oscar nominated roles in Far from Heaven and Boogie Nights. I told a friend that I knew she was great because for the first time ever I actually felt bad for Sarah Palin.

Continued:       1       2