I woke up at about 3:30 a.m. and went online to see if Obama had pulled a victory out of Indiana. He had narrowed Clinton's head to two points by midnight and later added a few more votes, but the story was basically about the same: Clinton's winning margin was so small that it didn't much count, and Obama would be the likely Presidential nominee. Then I started wondering, in the vaporous midnight hours, about how you could make a movie of this primary campaign.
I'm sure there will be documentaries. In the age of the video camera, there cannot be a public moment that went unrecorded. But I'm thinking of a fiction film. What would the angle be? Like most people I know, the primary went on long past my ability to care about it on a daily basis. It must have been a species of torture for the anchors at CNN, who seemed caught in a "Groundhog Day" loop, with the conclusion of each state election sliding relentlessly into the start of the next, while "panels" of talking heads were badgered to extract meaning when there was only pattern. If CNN had "the best political team on television," would it age and wither before the general election?
But where is the story? Hearing for the first time notes of exhaustion and discouragement in Clinton's voice, I wondered what it had been like for her, month after month, state after state, pumping out the same policies, the same optimism, while she was running on empty. Hotel after hotel, early morning show after late-night show, schools, union meetings, church events, potluck dinners, being introduced by the local clone of the Chairman of Today's Event. For Obama, it was the same, with the difference that for most of the time he seemed to be winning, which must have been a consolation.
The problem with a screenplay based on these events is that there would be a merciless sameness. Where is the drama in the story of a game of 48 innings? Each mini-climax, from "Hillary's tears" to the Rev. Wright's display at the National Press Club, was hopefully examined to see if it might "change the direction of the campaign," and it never did, it only prolonged the suffering of that day's CNN "panel." When Wolf Blitzer got out of bed in the morning, were his hand and arm already extended, so that the clipboard had only to be inserted by an aide?
The ideal primary movie was Warren Beatty's "Bulworth" (1998). There were other good films too, like Mike Nichols' "Primary Colors," (1998) based on a roman a clef about Hillary and Bill. Barry Levinson's "Wag the Dog" (1987), involved Clintonesque moments, had a screenplay by David Mamet, gave a phrase to the language, and was the best of the lot. But "Bulworth" was the ideal, because it had a cut-off point made of drama, not election days. Beatty plays a candidate sick onto death of uttering the same cliches. He takes out a contract on his own life, assuring that he will be assassinated in three days. That gives him the freedom to say exactly what's on his mind--what he, and any sensible person, might be thinking while pretending to believe their own platitudes.
That gave you suspense, comedy, some poignant private moments, and even a possible romance (with the newcomer Halle Berry). It was about transgression, not repetition. But the primary campaign that's now concluding has been a Groundhog loop, with no cut-off except for a victory, at which point the contest itself becomes yesterday's news.
The commentators Tuesday night spoke of Hillary's tired voice and Bill's dejected body language as if describing the malfunctions of robots. To me, it was humanizing material, like the time Hillary shed those tears. And a few days earlier Bill came close to the truth-telling of Bulworth when he told an audience, "I haven't come to ask you to vote for my wife, I've come to ask you to pray for her."
Considering those moments of insight, I thought of another movie that might provide a model for a possible film: "The Queen" (2006). What fascinated me about that film was its uncanny credibility. I could imagine Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip sharing their private time much like the characters in the film, with honesty and realism, with exasperation and impatience, carefully modulated to preserve the stability of a long marriage. Even the verbal shorthand was right. These people have been over this ground so many times, they share the same reference points.
Hillary and Bill are both intelligent, experienced political creatures. They've both been running for something since grade school. They are fueled by the desire for high office and public recognition, but fueled also by the process itself. They're good at it. Considering their apparent depression on Tuesday night I realized that, yes, as late as that, they really did still think Hillary could win, even after the CNN "panels" were running out of ways to say farewell. They believed it right up to the end, because they had to, they needed to, in order to keep on running at all.
Yet there must have been private moments of despair. The two realists, as able as anyone to read the trends, must have spoken privately about their shrinking options. And on Tuesday night, as Hillary's double-digit lead in Indiana dwindled to very small single digits, there must have come a time when one of them said, "We've lost this thing."
What were those moments like? What kept them going between themselves? Did they encourage one another, or was there an unspoken pact not to voice the unspeakable? Was there blame when Bill had one of his unwise moments? Did their shared past, of success and scandal, enter into it, or were they absorbed in this moment?
In answering those questions, there you would find the movie. It would be more introspective than audiences would probably prefer, and less sensational. Smarter, too. There would be a limited budget, because you wouldn't need a stadium filled with thousands of people so much as you'd need lots of lonely hotel rooms after midnight. The climaxes would come as one old comrade after another abandoned them for the Obama camp. There would be a desperate, clinging love that had survived all the years, because it was based on shared experience and memories and goals, not so much any longer on passion.
It would be a sad story, but a true one, and it might contain more truth than political movies are conventionally allowed to have. It might, like "Bulworth," say forbidden things. And issues would not be at issue: The campaign was not about political positions, but about sheer desire. Hillary wanted to win, and she ran and ran and ran until there was a kind of heroism to it. Futile heroism after a point, but that's where the story lies.
A wonderfully written post, Roger.
Personally, I've come to believe that the relationship between Bill and Hillary is little more than an arrangement of political convenience.
This is the first time Hillary has run for national office, and her Senate seat was practically handed to her. In a way, it's like we're seeing her in the light for the first time, and what we've seen is not the woman we thought she was. None of her actions have convinced me that she believes or stands for anything. She seems hellbent solely on the acquisition of personal power.
Obama has impressed me with his nonchalance, which is almost "Bulwarkian". You get the impression that Obama could take or leave the nomination. He's not too terribly concerned with winning. Maybe because he knows he has a bright political future with or without this presidency. I have a theory that Obama went into this campaign believing he would lose, and all his successes have surprised him. I think he just wanted to get his name out there, maybe present himself as a potential running mate. But here he is, leading the party. And why? Mostly because a lot of people have rejected the Clintons.
The real story is like a modern Citizen Kane. The Clintons, having forsaken love in their own relationship, have sent their lives trying to win the love the people. Only to discover that the people have fallen out of love with them. Now they are two people, alone in the same room.
That's a wonderful post, Roger, but something tells me Hillary hasn't quite given up yet. She is a tough cookie.
Roger,
I found it interesting that you chose Hill and Bill as the subjects for your Untitled Primary 08 Feature (Amy Irving as Hillary?). In a political season full of fallen heroes (McCain/ Rudy) , father quests (Obama/ Rev. Wright) underdogs, (Obama/Kucinich/Ron Paul) its incredible to me that you have managed to zone in on the most compelling human drama in the whole circus. The truth is that both Democratic candidates were so similar in positions that the campaign became about an outright rejection of the Clintons.
A very astute observation indeed.
Thanks Mr. Ebert for publishing your blog. I've been recommending this blog to friends, and here is what I wrote:
***
I've added a few personal blogs from various personalities and have removed a lot, because their writing sucks or I'm not interested in what they're talking about. I've kept Wil Wheaton's simply to support Star Trek (he played the nerdy Wesley on that show) but I'm tempted to delete it every time he talks about his "love" of writing. Stop loving it so much, and actually write!
Ebert's blog has been tops. Not only does he talk about movies, but he writes so well, with humor and thoughtfulness, pretty much my bullet-proof kinks. One of his recent entries describing his work reporting for his high school football game made me bust out laughing. His latest today, musing about how this year's primary election could me dramatized, described a vision of sympathetic, heroic characters that drew an immediate emotional response.
Reading his blog is really different than watching or reading his movie reviews; in both of these other formats, his words are condensed and spoiler-free as required. His blog entries feel like he took the time, and got the time, to say what he wanted, and I'm so glad I get to read it.
Your insight is uncanny Roger. This movie MUST be made. Just as you described it.I think though what would add tremendously is contrasting the fading of one political brand and another rising. And to see how the two marriages, the (Obamas and the Clintons) respond to similar stimuli and sentiment. This I believe would make a GREAT movie.
Such a movie might include an intense scene where everyone discusses how to imply that Obama is a scary Muslim, while seeming to support him:
I guess I'm having a hard time forgiving the Clintons for the race-baiting they've done to try to win this, and as a result, am not ready for a love story about them. I would be much more interested in a movie that shadows Citizen Kane, showing young, idealistic youth slowly morphing into power-grubbing loss of principles.
On a lighter side, I enjoyed two recent web videos, one that shows Hillary as Tracy Flick from Election, and the other with Obama as a Rocky montage, both available here.
just be sure the script includes one of the very most *real* Bulworthian -- or is it a Wagarian -- reasons for HRC to go on: if she quits now, who would continue to donate to her campaign? And if she received no more donations, how will she repay the nearly $12M in personal loans -- plus interest, of course -- to herself? What's that? You honestly thought she would back her own bid for power with her own money? Come on, Man, her household earned a paltry $104M last year. Do you feel her desire to Serve The People is actually worth fully ten percent of one year's income? Clearly she doesn't think so, else they would not be loans, and she would have financed her own bid for power, and not ridden on the backs of the hopeful. And, yes, I fully understand campaign finance laws. Do you understand the loopholes written in by the very people using them?
You might assume from this I'm an HRC hater or a BHC supporter or, God forbid, a GOP-no-matter-what, but in this you would be mistaken. I am just another American weary of the process we have mired ourselves in.
But tragedy always makes for good cinema, and you don't have to like the people or the process to enjoy the story of the struggle. The third character in this movie, of course, will be We The People, and I'm always interested in movies that tell my story.
Rico
A great post. I do disagree, though, with the characterization of Hillary as "heroic," even futilely so. It seems to me more of a "comeuppance" story. That in her arrogance and sense of entitlement, she was denied what she saw as her birthright. She ran and ran not out of heroism, but out of self-deception that fate would somehow set things right and hand her what she deserved. She didn't realize until it was too late (and perhaps not at all) that the calculating and destructiveness that she hoped to use to undo her opponent came back upon her, like a evil spell cast at a mirror.
Roger,
Great post (all of your posts have been great). Like you, I believe there is more love shared between the Clintons than most people seem to want to grant. That's not to say I think Hillary has been a straight-shooting candidate. On the contrary, she seems desperate to win this nomination. Though Bill has made some missteps in the campaign, I feel he has worked hard and sincerely on her behalf, and for no other reason than he owes it to her.
Yes, their story would make a poignant movie if placed in the proper hands.
I'm one of those who stayed up until 1:00 a.m. following the cast of MSNBC as they waited and inferred and argued and pronounced. A biopic of the first family of the 90s would benefit from the writing and perhaps the direction of a Neil LaBute, someone with near apathy for his characters. David Mamet's screenplay for Wag the Dog still resonates with me. I'm always amazed at how the cadence of his writing comes through in the performances even when he's not behind the camera. I think that LaBute brings a similar poetry — I have no doubt that there's plenty of profanity and brutal, apolitical frankness in private moments. Perhaps even the occasional raising of the adultery specter. I definitely like the idea of the "indie" approach rather than the blockbuster, "Walk the Line" approach.
I remember when the primaries first began in January. The excitement that had built, not just between the candidates for the Democratic Party, but the excitement in the Republican party as well. When McCain won the nomination, focus shifted to the battle between Clinton and Obama, excitement still abound. This being my first real presidential election, my hopes so high for change, hinged on the words of Clinton and Obama, I couldn't help but feel I could actually help change the course of US history with the simple casting of a vote in the primary. As you stated, Mr. Ebert, time past, interest waned, yet both Clinton and Obama soldier on, trying to maintain public interest in the rest of the country. Seeing Clinton in particular, appearing on Letterman, and Colbert, trying to appeal to younger voters, believing she has a fighting chance to win this prolonged battle is courageous. Yet its those quite little moments the public doesn't see, when these candidates can stop performing and express themselves to those people closest to them. That would indeed be a film I'd love to see. I wonder if it will ever be made.
No, as Emily said, Hillary isn't going to give up. There is no doubt that her drive for the nomination is greater. I'm not saying Obama doesn't want it, I'm just saying that Hillary's drive is greater. Yes, judging by the climate today it seems very likely that Obama will be the nominee. But, as they say, it 'aint over 'til it's over. And you can bet the Clinton's will be with this thing until the very end, and if and when they do lose they will be contesting Florida and Michigan to high heaven...
Great post, sir.
Well, I am not going to pretend to be able to write as beautifully as you. Obviously with your physical travails, the chance to experience your perspective takes on a little additional urgency for people like me who have followed your work for as long as I can remember there being film criticism. Thanks for the journal obviously.
As far as the movie goes? Well, the story should be about the Clintons. I see their marriage as a shared passion for politics and service than for each other. They both have given up a lot. Bill would obviously be played by someone at ease with long held authority and charisma. Probably Jeff Bridges' president in "The Contender" would be the best choice. Hillary would have to be able to be a "tough dame" but able to show some cracks, someone unsure about her public image and indecisive about how "tough" she should look.
The key scenes should be all about the Clintons. Obama should be pleasant, but seen distantly and mysteriously. He exists as "change". The rest of the movie I'd think is about that human drama, but also about media and time. Maybe the Clintons' time has simply passed.
My fear is that in the wrong hands, the movie would drown in the same misogyny that's lashed against Hillary Clinton's campaign since the start. I've lost a lot of respect for many on the so-called "left" who have wallowed in the misogyny just as gleefully as even the staunchest far-righter.
You forgot Alexander Payne's "Election" (1999). Originally people speculated the race in the movie was modeled after the 3-way election in 1992 with Reese Witherspoon's character in the same role as Bill Clinton. Many people now are comparing Hillary Clinton to Tracy Flick, someone who deserves to be President because she believes she worked so hard for it:
http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1377935786 (Hillary's Inner Tracy Flick)
The final two - comparatively mediocre - seasons of The West Wing also predicted a similar race, both in the democratic primaries, but especially in the general election, should Obama win the democratic nomination. That show pitted Jimmy Smits's Democratic Congressman Matthew Santos against Alan Alda's Senator Arnold Vinick in the final presidential elections.
I am also reminded of You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown, but that has a lot to do with my affinity to great pumpkins.
Hillary Clinton is not heroic. She's a politican who wants to win. That's it. I do not believe the Clintons have any real love between them. They're together for political reasons and convience. I really don't understand where this Clinton worship comes from. Its almost the same as the Republican's worship of Reagan. The Clintons are just two spouses who happen to both be in politics. There may have been love in the beginning, but now that has been overshadowed by achievement. I can't help but believe that people actually think the Clintons are the John Travolta and Emma Thompson characters in PRIMARY COLORS. Just like many believe that Reagan was the heroic characters he played in some of his movies. They're not. That doesn't mean they're horrible people, it just means they're human and more complex than characters in a hollywood movie or best-selling book. Why do you feel the need to put Hillary on a pedestal? Just because she's a woman? I've never read anything like this for any MALE candiate who refused to bow out in the face of supposed defeat. Why this coddling? Yes, it takes a lot to run for office in this country. Even more so when you have a chance to win. But, EVERYONE goes through this who runs. I think its telling that if you believe a movie should be made, it should be made about the Clintons. If you want to make a movie, it should be about the Obamas. Look at what THIS couple have to go through. And they've never been through anything like this before, unlike the Clintons. THAT'S a better story. It could describe how this strong couple, who believe in American politics and what's right, puts their hat into the ring as the underdogs only to be hoisted up by the media as the-next-best-thing, only to be burned down by the same media just so it'll be a better story. Now, with an extraordinary amount of people backing them, they still have to be on the defensive just so a family (the Clintons) can be in the White House a SECOND TIME within a decade. They have to defend themselves from petty criticisms of not wearing a flag pin, choosing orange juice instead of coffee, what a reverend said twenty years ago, not covering one's heart during a song where its not reguired to cover one's heart, etc. While Hillary gets away with blatantly lying about dodging gunfire with Sinbad and getting people to believe she's not an elitist even after making one-hundred million last year. The OBAMAS are the heroic ones. THEY are the supportive couple in love. The fact that you want to make a movie about the Clintons instead of them, shows exactly what's wrong with the political proccess and our society in general.
===
"The OBAMAS are the heroic ones. THEY are the supportive couple in love. The fact that you want to make a movie about the Clintons instead of them, shows exactly what's wrong with the political proccess and our society in general."
===
I think that statement shows what's wrong with our society in general. Do people really think that Obama is so much more noble than either of the Clintons? I mean, he's slicker than a greased up Bill Clinton...
The idol worship for one of modern politics most superficial figures is a little disconcerting.
That sounds like a movie I'd like to see. However, on the basis of many of the comments this post has received so far, I suspect that far too many viewers would be bringing too many of their own strong political feelings into play for the film to really resonate with viewers of this generation. Obama supporters would see the film as being too sympathetic to the supposedly cruel and evil Hilary, while Clinton supporters would see it as being too critical of the supposedly noble and valiant Hilary. Which, I suppose, would be a good indication that the film was quite good.
Just as moviegoers of the 1990s were unable to accept a complex movie about Richard Nixon, I suspect that we might need another decade or two before moviegoers will be able accept a complex movie about the Clintons. As long as a politician is still a politician, many viewers will only be able to see a movie about that politician as political.
Oh, Joshua. The story of Barack Obama was played out about forty years ago with a better cast, more class, and a little more genuine feeling than that of your average Lifetime movie rerun. I can only hope that the ending does not repeat.
I just find it sad and pathetic that Hillary is taking her whole party down in flames with her and I think it reveals her true self. Her goal could only be to smear Obama until Obama's base is so disheartened that they lose interest in politics, and with his hopes for the general election destroyed, she can run in 4 years to a less enthusiastic populace.
It does seem as though she represents some blue-blood cabal that fears the end of an era of dominance and subjugation. "For heaven sakes dahling, that negro might win the presidency. We'd best put him back in his place before they all start getting delusions of grandeur. Call Hills, it's time to pull out the whip". Puts back of hand to forehead "Ah... The nerve of that one... we let him go to Harvard and this is how he shows his thanks!"
There's also this crazy delusion some people have that the Clintons are, or were, good politicians. This has never been the case. They only won in 1992 because Ross Perot was a Republican spoiler. They won in 1996 because Bob Dole was one of the worst candidates in living history, and also because Ross Perot was a spoiler.
I think your post intrigues because people really do wonder what their relationship is like. Personally I don't think they are together much in those quiet moments so I honestly don't think there would be much of a movie. I'm a Republican but I'd still love to see a movie depicting the behind the scenes and intimate takes of Michelle and Obama because I think there would be some great stories about leadership. It has the possibility of being instructive, motivating and energizing.
The movie should be about both the Obamas and the Clintons. This spectrum would be fascinating, a look by which people can reflect upon the link between marriages and the way that a president is "married" to the country.
My vote for a director would be Steven Soderbergh. He has the ability both to depict the situation sympathetically and maintain a detachment befitting the best approach to a political story.
Roger,
That was the most humanizing thing I've read about the Clintons in a long time. I'm an Obama supporter and have been outspoken about Hillary for as long as she's been in the race. I forget sometimes that they are people too and they go through turmoil and despair like the rest of us. It must be hard facing the fact that you'll be nothing but a footnote in history.
i fully agree with EVERYTHING joshua said in his post above mine. the clinton-centric lens through which we've viewed this process is both mind-boggling and nauseating. it's why we so desperately need CHANGE.
I wonder if another model would be, if not the full screenplay of "Nixon," at least some of the behind-the-scenes bits of it. Oliver Stone did not dwell on moments like the "I am not a crook" speech, but he offered us glimpses at how moments like that came about. We spent more time listening to Haldeman, Kissinger, et al. talk to each other than we did listening to Nixon address the nation. This primary season we spent a lot of time listening to the Obamas and the Clintons talk to the nation, but did we hear one comment from one Clinton adviser to another?
I'm really enjoying the blog, Roger.
New York Magazine had a very similar idea a month ago and commissioned West Wing writer Lawrence O’Donnell Jr. to imagine what would (will?) happen if the Democrats face a deadlocked convention. It's a crackling good read with a killer final line.
"Four Days in Denver"
http://nymag.com/news/politics/45786/
The audacity of hoping in the change we can believe in! Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!
The fact that people are so in love with this false idol that they would go to the extent to trash Roger Ebert over the fact that he merely cast some sympathy on a candidate whose very existence is being grossly misrepresented is REALLY disappointing. Ebert is a treasure, Obama panders to a crowd that desperately wants to hear his message. But, as we can plainly see, pandering works.
And all Mr. Ebert was trying to do was say maybe there is more here than meets the eye. The fanatics lack of respect for anything but their demagogue is a little off-putting. I mean hell, for all you people know, Ebert is an Obama supporter! He hasn't made that public though, and it is not our business anyway.
What an utterly lovely post. After having scanned dozens of articles today smugly relishing the downfall of the once-unstoppable Clintons, it was such a breath of fresh air to be able to read a sympathetic and humanizing account of their campaign.
There is indeed a great film here, and thank you for choosing to focus your hypothetical lens on the Clintons. Not because I support Hilary's candidacy, but because there is so much human drama here. What must it be like for the Clinton's these days? To have been held up so high, only to face the humiliation and disappointment of a campaign gone wrong? And after so much work, hope, optimism? Given that the universal vulnerability of the politician is pride, what must it feel like to face the rejection of a nation?
Yes, there is a truly great film here. And thank you for mentioning Primary Colours, a film that captures so well the marital strains and unspoken angst that result from a life of leadership.
Where most forums these days are dripping with partisan poison (as some of the comments above indicate, I'm sorry to say), its truly refreshing to consider the people that actually ran this race, and appreciate what it must have taken to run - and what it must be like to lose.
After thinking this over some more, I think a movie about the Clintons would be too fictional to be interesting, because no matter how true to life the movie would be, no one would accept it as truthful, simply because the Clintons are Rorschach blots at this point.
Much more interesting would be to have super-powers of invisbility or historical recall that allow one to see and hear what happens behind closed doors at the Clinton's. Or the Obama's. Or heck, being able to see the lives and actual circumstances of of any powerful person would be illuminating.
Although, I fear it might actually be boring, like in Being John Malkovich. Powerful people probably spend too much time picking out towel colors. So, I guess this movie has already been made. Never mind...
This election is so deeply connected to popular culture that an actual Primary Colors style movie seems inevitable. I like the idea of focusing on Bill and Hillary's private moments simply because their marriage is so unknowable from our vantage point. Of course, Chelsea should play a key role here as well. She has been a key part of this dynamic, especially since she began campaigning on her mom's behalf and faced so many questions about her father's infidelities.
Your mention of Stephen Frears' The Queen reminds me that Helen Mirren would be perfect as Hillary. In fact, it would very likely score her another Oscar.
Speaking as someone who was never a fan of the Clintons, even in the 90s--and someone who never understood her front-runner status because I saw someone with excessive negatives going into the campaign, I think a model for a story on a political couple like them would be Charlie Kaufman's musings in the film Adaptation.
At the screenwriting workshop with Robert McKee, Kaufman asks why characters need to change. People in real life don't always change. It seems like the Clintons haven't in all their time in public life. They still seem like people who lust for glory and justify their means with ends in their sights.
But drama comes from change. I think the change we'd witness would be that from the audience themselves. The characters that grow would be the audience as they change their perceptions of characters that at first seem like charming populists but turn out to be power-mad and delusional.
I imagine the ending would be the two of them in a state of arrested and endless campaigning, like a toy car that's run into a wall. Perhaps the camera would dissolve from an image of a campaign speech to that of a strait-jacketed Hillary twitching in a rubber room writing her next speech on the dojo-like floor with blood she's extracted from her toes.
The movie this campaign most reminds me of is "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" (Directed by Sidney Pollack; written by James Poe and
Robert Thompson, from a novel by Horace McCoy)
As the oracle IMDB says: The lives of a disparate group of contestants intertwine in an inhumanely grueling dance marathon.
Yep, that's this campaign.
Roger I'm a big fan, and I love your politics, and I know you're an empathizer from way back, that's your nature, but- after you posted this, back in the real world this woman was injecting race into this campaign in the most negative and egregious way since her husband pulled his stunt in S. Carolina. Frankly I find it difficult to CARE about the private moments and the private sufferings of people who do such things publicly. This is not a good person. This is not a noble person. This is someone who, like all national political candidates, has a few screws loose. However hers seem looser than anybody else's at this point, and it's all the more glaring because she seems to have no moral compass. She's running the campaign from hell. She's being talked about now on TV (and, I imagine, in political circles) as if she's some sort of demented monster everyone has to appease, else she'll breathe fire and destroy the party- and you know what, that seems about right. They will never live this down, and what's worst of all is that they probably don't think there IS anything to live down. These people will sit around after this nightmare and agree that the only thing they did wrong was not win. I'd sooner empathize with a gila monster.
The '08 Democratic nomination as a film is something I've thought about constantly throughout this entire election cycle. It's got all the twists, turns, and scandals worthy of a compelling drama. Being an Obama supporter, I couldn't help but look at this as a David vs. Goliath story. Clinton, a seasoned veteran who shrewdly rode the Clinton gravy train to the top - and was outfoxed at every turn during what appeared to be a coronation. It's the ultimate underdog story, a man who defied the odds and conventional wisdom and made America believe you could restore honesty and integrity to politics. Hollywood loves Horatio Alger; how could this NOT be a blockbuster hit?
A story like that of the Clintons, however, is ultimately far more interesting - what must it feel like to underestimate your opponents as she has, only to be humbled as a result of your arrogance? How in the world is a marriage like theirs possible? How - WHY - does she press on? How does she see come to see herself in the face of "change", as personified by a political phenomenon like Obama? Does she wake up one morning and realize she has become the status-quo? If it sounds like I'm being one-sided in my assessment of Clinton, I'll admit I AM biased. But great movies are unafraid to take sides, right?
Politics precludes the heroic because of the great potential to hurt people through the exercise of power, even when the decisions are right or necessary. This is what makes political grandstanding obscene. Good politicians make hard decisions, try to harmonise conflict and tell people the truth. They shouldn't make themselves into a protagonist, they shouldn't be someone we barrack for, rather, they should be someone we listen to and who listens to us.
I don't live in your country; In Australia we are often criticised for making our heroes out of sports people, to the exclusion of all others. The virtue of this is that most sports people don't have the capacity to inflict harm. Recently we've tried to buck this trend by making scientists into our heroes. This is a solution to our desire for the heroic.
Clinton appeals to me deeply on a personal level and her struggle appeals to me. I do want her to win. She does inspire me to barrack for her - but she shouldn't, because with every political victory there are costs. Who loses if she wins? Who loses if I - whoever I might be - win? That's the interesting question to ask; The interesting question a good film would ask.
See? This is why, when kids ask me which "how to be a writer" books they should be reading, I tell them to just eschew those and get a couple of collections of Roger Ebert's movie reviews. All you need to know about writing, plot, structure, characterization, and what makes stories and characters work (or not work) is all spelled out in those reviews. There's more practical advice in this entry than in any five "Unleashing the Writer Within" books.
Roger: I wish you would publish a compilation of your political writings; I'm still sending people my text file of "It's the Presidency, Stupid" from back in 2000.
i am so glad roger ebert is back. i have started translating roger ebert's reviews into persian and i publish them in a weblog named www.rogerebert.blogfa.com . so many cinema lovers visit it and most iranian ppl know you . if you had time visit that weblog and leave a comment . i hope mr ebert live in next 200 years (iranian proverb) . by the way i am from iran .
I'm troubled to read the acidic characterizations of Hillary's character outlined above. They seem unwarranted, and unkind. What I loved about Roger's post was his willingness to look past "Hillary the candidate" and empathize with "Hillary the person." We seem to have lost that in this comments section.
Hillary, like all politicians - including her husband and Barack Obama - faces the pathos of pride. Recognition, validation, admiration - these are the drugs of choice for all politicians. And while this is indeed a character flaw, it is in no way unique to Hillary Clinton. She is a person who loves her country deeply, and believes, rightly or wrongly, that she is the most able to improve and defend it. She is by all accounts decent. Arrogant, yes. Villainous? Certainly not.
Thanks again, Roger, for appreciating the human side of Hillary Clinton. We tend far too often to see politicians as buttons and banners.
Mark, what country/planet are living on? Obama set his sights on the Presidency BEFORE he even ran for Senate. Obama may well make an excellent president. But he was a largely ineffective lawmaker during most of his career in the Illinois General Assembly.
It isn’t well known that Obama built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year. Or that he spent most of his tenure evading leadership on key community issues in and around his district. Or that he first skated into elective office uncontested by using aggressive legal tactics to knock all other candidates off the ballot.
Wearing his ambitions on his sleeve, Obama has run for a more powerful political position every three years since being elected in 1996 to the Illinois legislature
Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. was Obama's kingmaker. "I'm gonna make me a president", was his famous quote.
So please, enough of this sainthood for Obama. He's just another politician with better than most skills at pulling at people's emotional strings. Unfortunately, this does not a leader make. This does not give him the experience he will need to clean up this mess that the Bushies have left. Say what you will about Hillary, but she and Bill pulled us out of the last Republican mess. Plus, she is a fighter. Had she ran against Bush in 2000, you can bet your Obamaphiled brain that there would have been a Florida recount and we wouldn't be in this mess now.
Hey Yorkali, the Obama camp made it into a "race thing" and you bought it. Wow, I guess this is how its going to be. Anytime you tell a truth about Obama you'll be labeled a racists. Should make for an interesting presidency.
"I'm troubled to read the acidic characterizations of Hillary's character outlined above. They seem unwarranted, and unkind. What I loved about Roger's post was his willingness to look past "Hillary the candidate" and empathize with "Hillary the person." We seem to have lost that in this comments section."
Oh so sorry to be unkind. We should all also look past "Hitler the dictator" and "Cheney the Vice President". Let's look at their HUMAN sides. Let's not be so unkind. Or- or- we could admit that some people are just really, really evil. And that evil people, if they're also well-educated and of a certain temperament, tend to go into politics. And sometimes they win. When they win, we lose. Hillary, thank God, has lost. But I will not apologize for being unkind to a woman who has run such a monstrous campaign. She and her creepy husband and their creepy, evil relationship, and their power hunger, can go back to Arkansas for all I care. They need to leave my country alone.
ps
I know calling Hillary 'really, really evil' will cause outrage in other commenters. But if I called Cheney- who honestly is much more like Hillary than different from her- evil, no one would bat an eyelash. Frankly I don't care if she's a democratic candidate. She and her group are evil, so far as any people can be evil. I'm sure she has a 'human side' just as anyone does. Even Jeffrey Dahmer was sympathetic, in his way. But not to the victims or their families. Well, the whole country is victim to someone like this.
Dear Roger: thank you for writing the journal, and thanks for the suggestion about a movie on Hillary and Bill, one I would certainly enjoy seeing.
The other posts make it so clear that most opinions about the candidates, and most so called "facts" about the candidates, come from one's choices about what media to watch or possibly read, and from what psychologists call projection. As dcgeek said in his post, they are Rorschach ink blots. Come on people! consider what you "know" about Hillary and Bill or Barack and Michele: none of it is based on first hand knowledge of these people.
Prejudice against women, though hidden, is MUCH older and stronger and harder to combat nowadays than prejudice against African-Americans. That is why I decided to vote for Hillary, and still will if given the chance.
I will stop giving the preference to women when we have 5 women on the Supreme Court.
There are few bigger myths in America than the ones put forth by Hillary and her supporters. She is "heroic"; she is the face of change; she is the one who should be answering the phone at 3 a.m. -- to protect our children, don't you know. What she is, is a fraud, in words and in deed; and a cinematic account of her candidacy should be done by Matt Groening, creator of "The Simpsons". He'd do justice to Hillary's claims of facilitating peace talks in Ireland, or deplaning under gunfire in Bosnia. In a cartoon format, viewers could watch Hillary's nose grow longer and longer with each lie. It's not enough that she lied about Bosnia; that she was so reckless about an easy-to-discover lie is gross stupidity. And, at a time when the U.S. is in desperate need of a skilled diplomat in the oval office, someone who can listen while still promoting U.S. interests among world leaders, we have this pretender to the throne snapping off a comment about "totally obliterating" Iran were it to attack Israel. Her idea (shared by Sen. McCain) about repealing gas taxes this summer yielded another clue to her arrogance and short attention span. George Stephanopoulos asked Clinton if she could name a single economist who thinks this quick fix is a good idea. Hillary replied, inanely, "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists." Right. She’ll fix the economy but she doesn’t listen to economists. Where was Heroic Hillary when only a few senators, like Senator Obama, took an informed, courageous moral stand against the War in Iraq? Did she take a moral stand, as a really courageous woman might have, by leaving a philandering husband so she could make it on her own? Obama has been relentlessly attacked for staying in a church that formerly had a pastor who’s glory-seeking, irresponsible idiot. What about her “associations”? With a husband who’s a convicted liar? With former business partners who ended up in prison? Supporters give her credit for all this “experience” at running a country by proximity to the man who actually did run the country for 8 years. But, by the same token, why is she not answerable; it seems, for any part of her close proximity to a Clinton presidency notorious for lies, deception and lawyerly evasiveness. If Heroic Hillary really wants to impress voters with her gutsy-ness, she should sign on for the next “Jackass” movie. Now there’s a format that rewards blind, reckless behavior and disregard for serious consequences.
I like Bill and Hillary Clinton. I understand that they are politicians and politician do what they have to do to win. (Ask Barack Obama) People try to demonize Hillary because of her desire to be President. They didn't inject race in this election.
Rev. Jesse Jackson did win South Carolina. Where is the injection of race? All of a sudden it's about race. I as a Black man know what racism is and if Barack Obama thinks he's gonna get a pass from these lying white people....(I'm a good Democrat, I'm voting for Obama. He will learn a new thing about race in America....
"Race Matters"
Hi Roger,
I'm so pleased to see you're back writing and blogging, again.
The movie - Bill & Hill - is a wonderful idea as you describe them with all the Clintons human foibles, talents, and her stunning drive to become the nominee & then president.
While I don't think the Clintons are the modern MacBeths, I believe they're my generation American baby boomers who were born to run and run and run in order to be loved and loved and loved.
This is the movie screenplay that YOU should write. Although I think BVD was a classic film, don't you want to write this movie yourself? I hope you will write this script. My guess is that you'd love to.
Please write this movie
Be well.
I graduate with an MFA in playwriting this month and in the course of the last three years I have learned a thing or two about dramatic structure. And one of the first lessons is that you can tell a story about the big picture by starting out to write a story about the big picture. You must start small and let a single story tell the big story. "The Queen" is the best example of this. How sick have I grown with the biopic that traces a it's subject from birth to the grave. This structure never does the subjects justice. In the case of "The Queen" however, Peter Morgan took a single event in the Queen Elizabeth's life (the death of Princess Diana) and from that one week in the woman's life, we understand her more deeply than a film that would attempt to guide is through her entire existence. What would that moment be in this campaign? I do not know. But years from now when the story is dramatized I hope the dramatist learn from Peter Morgan's "The Queen" one of the greatest screenplays of recent years.
Normally political films like the one Mr. Ebert proposes benefit from the distance of a few years unless they are highly fictionalized. Time gives the writer the benefit of some perspective instead of speculating on a knee-jerk reaction. It's hard to imagine "The Queen" or "J.F.K." being made right after the deaths that propel them.
I am fascinated with what Oliver Stone is going to do with "W." He's a lefty, for sure. There is no way anyone can possibly doubt that. Stone gave us a surprisingly well rounded study of "Nixon," but with the perspective of a few years.
Roger,
In the films you describe, and including "The Candidate," the film makers want to make sure The Public is aware that politics is about how marketing and strategy handlers craft a person into a product they can sell to the public. In your film, you suppose that two hardened political products can still achieve intimate moments or introspection. In my film, there is no longer any capacity for either intimacy or introspection because it was replaced long ago by the continuously pressing concerns for strategy and tact.
Hillary and Bill as heroic?
That is why such left wing movies fail at the box office, the Clinton sycophants lack to candor to face the truth.
Truthfully,
Bill and Hillary campaign like Shakespeare's MacBeth and his lady. Read Barabra Olsen's "The Final Days" if you would understand why the Clintons are so unpopular.
Given the foreign policy mess that President Bush inherited, Bill Clinton will go down in history as America's Emperor Nero. After the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, Clinton should have gotten more aggressive, Instead Clinton attempted to negotiate Peace Agreements with Yassar Arafat, even during his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
It is scary that people see Bill and Hilary as servants of the people. Bill and Hilary are actually servants of their own Narcissim.
The body language of the Clintons Tuesday night spoke volumes. Roger was right, it would be interesting to see and hear the conversation and emotions that led up to that night. What's with all the Clinton bashing? Roger was not endorsing either candidate; he was just showing some empathy. My guess is that most Clinton critics were not wage earners during his term. By the way Obama will make a great president.
It figures the ad hominem posts on this thread are the anonymous ones.
Anyway, to put the Clintons are the protagonists in the story is not a slight on the Obamas. Barack and Michelle's story is great, but it is a story arc that we've seen movies about already, probably some sort of 3 hour epic that a guy like Oliver Stone or Spike Lee could direct. But we have not really seen the Clintons 2008 story before.
I picture Obama existing as a far away sort of presence. You would sense his charisma and his allure, but he would be elusive. There is a distinctly spectral quality to Obama anyway. The large speeches, the autobiography as stuff of legend. I am an Obama supporter, but his campaign does not try to humanize him. His main role is as a force of nature.
The roles of the media have to be prominent. In addition to a human story about the Clintons, the 2008 story has to be about media narrative. The evolution of the media from 1996 to 2008 has been crucial so far. How Bill Clinton's verbal gaffes get caught, how he gets frustrated by them.
The Clintons relationship is interesting. It IS shared sacrifice. They clearly do not have passion for each other, but they do for the mission -- whether this mission is an egotistical one or an altruistic one or some combination is up to you -- and that has held them together. But clearly reading any of the behind the scenes stuff, she and he have separate campaigning agendas. How does that square itself behind closed doors? (his advisors vs hers, his legacy vs her vision for the future)
As a fan who once met Mr. Ebert (We spoke of mutual friend Marilyn Gill) and a screenwriter who was mentored by academy award winning screenwriters, I say this film's ACT III is happening after the election. A possible end to a failed marriage re- invented one time too many? Then a new life after politics?... Primary colors fictionalize the Clintons, before the election why couldn't this be after the loss? I'm available to start writing. Respectfully, Ted Chase
Great post! I've also wondered about those quiet times they certainly share and how much or little she must blame him for some of his missteps. The film would be kind of Nixonesque in tone.
I believe that what defeated Hillary was her fall to the Dark Side... using Karl Rove tactics of smears, fear-mongering and attack-your-enemy's-strength. Good will always triumph of evil. Right? Well maybe not, but it makes a good movie.
But it needs some comic relief though, hmmm, maybe Clinton's reluctant call to Kucinich asking for his support as a super-delegate. That must have been awkward.
Maybe the spark of realization of their loss comes when Bill and Hillary laugh and talk candidly the lapel-pin nonsense- justifying their attack to themselves because she was criticized for her crappy anthem singing early on... but then, "Oh, he never brought that up."
Thanks Roger.
Hint: No matter who's president, continuing your education is a pretty good idea right now. The next few years are going to be tough.
Rent "The Candidate" (1972), or ask Bill Clinton if you can borrow his copy.
Would we be calling any other candiate "Heroic" if THEY refused to bow out of the race? Would we be wondering what they, as a person, is going through, or how their relationship with their spouse is? I believe the only reason why we are asking or thinking these things of Hillary is because she's a woman and a Clinton.
If it was John Edwards in Hillary's place would we be calling him heroic for staying in? Would we be thinking about what he and his wife are going through? I think not. I believe we would be criticizing him for staying in or supporting his decision for going on, depending on our own political views, but, not romanicize it by making him out to be some kind of tragic hero. He would be a policitian. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why is she heroic? Because she's a woman? I really do feel as if there has been extra care being given to Clinton (specifically by older men) just because she's a woman. I remember reading statements like "She has spunk!". What is this, the nineteen thirties? Is she about to star in a Howard Hawk's romantic comedy along side Cary Grant? If it was a MALE politician, would we be saying HE had "spunk"? The only reason why we would do this with her, I think, is because as a woman we think she's something special for doing things that men do.
Which is exactly what's wrong. That's unbelievably condecending to her. If women are equal to men, what makes her staying in the race so special? Maybe if she was just Hillary Rodham, a little known New York senator who's never been in the limelight, and has somehow found herself in this race, then, maybe it would make sense to give her extra credit (but, even then, it wouldn't be becuase of her being a woman, but because she's not used to being in a political race).
But, this is Hillary Clinton. If there ever was a woman who should be used to the media scrutiny of running in a political race, its her. If there ever was a COUPLE used to politics, its the Clintons.
It just bothers me when people make statements like Mr. Ebert's, calling Clinton heroic and emphasizing her human quality, when male polictians almost never get this consideration.
Again, the only reason I can come up with, is because they love the Clintons and this idea among the older generations that women still need to be taken cared of.
Hi Roger,
FYI: Wag the Dog was based on a Larry Beinhart novel called American Hero. American Hero talked about how the first Gulf War was staged based on a final memo from Lee Atwater before he died on what to do if George Bush was in trouble.
It actually contained a lengthy appendix detailing that he didn't think that the Gulf War was staged, but enumerated all of the ways that the war was fishy and echoed Hollywood movie productions.
So in the context in which Wag the Dog was released it was received as a commentary on Clinton, the reality is that it was intended to comment on the Bush's war.
Nice post.
A few things:
--the year on Wag the Dog is 1997.
--thinking again of The War Room, the doc on Clinton's presidential race, Hilary is so much in the background there that it's impossible to think of her in the same light as we do now
--and the grammar of this sentence:
"Like most people I know, the primary went on long past my ability to care about it on a daily basis."
...is unintentionally funny.
Roger Ebert has a very insightful approach to the story, and it's a movie that should be made. It will need to have an ending, however, and it will depend on what happens between now and November. If Obama goes on to win the Presidency, then the tragedy of the Clintons will remain mainly internal and personal. However, if either of the nightmare scenarios occurs; Clinton blowing up the party at the Convention (which I don't think she would do), or the behavior of the media and of Obama supporters so alienating the people who voted for Clinton, as well as the people of Florida and Michigan whose votes didn't count, that they stay home or vote for McCain (which I won't do but which a lot of others would) that the Republicans keep the White House and keep us in a neverending war, it will then be a tragedy for the country and the world. Also, if Obama loses in November due not to anything Clinton does to him, but rather to what he does, or his supporters do, or what the Republicans do to him, it would, in a way, be vindication for Clinton's flawed but heroic run.
Good biography requires distance. To be done well, a movie along the lines Ebert is thinking of would need to be made perhaps 20 years from now.
I'll bet there will be at least a couple of filmmakers who will not believe this. Indulging one of the most deeply-held conceits of the entertainment business, they will think themselves capable of conveying a "psychological truth" about people that they will think they know -- as soon as those people are converted into characters in the filmmakers' movies. The products resulting from this line of thought will, like Stone's execrable "Nixon", say a great deal more about the filmmakers than about their subject.
That aside, if you were going to try for a movie about someone who sought the Presidency and failed, why would you choose Hillary Clinton as your subject? Granted, her professional life has been mostly a preparation for the campaign she is running now; she came to public prominence as Bill Clinton's wife, became a Senator because she was Bill Clinton's wife, got rich (through a multi-million dollar book deal -- and anyone who thinks a movie about Hillary Clinton would be a fun evening really needs to be forced to read that book all the way through) because she was Bill Clinton's wife, and became a Presidential front runner because she was Bill Clinton's wife. And she ran for President, and lost. Given a little time, this story might not seem quite so interesting as it does now. Think of all the people for whom the permanent campaign was not their professional home, who sought the big prize after achieving great (or at least interesting) things, and then failed -- Clay, Webster, Bryan, Roosevelt (in 1912), Smith, Rockefeller, Humphrey, Dole, Bradley. Or, as it will probably turn out this year, John McCain. Why would not one of these make a much more interesting subject for a film than Hillary Clinton?
Perhaps present-day politicians make a more vivid impression on us, or at least on most of us, because we see so much of them on television and the Internet. We think we know them, and maybe we do. If we do, what could we possibly learn from a film about them? And if we don't, is it because we have missed some transcendant psychological truth that only a gifted filmmaker can show us? It may instead just be that we haven't been paying close enough attention.
If such a movie was made in the near future, I think Hope Davis would be perfect in the lead.
I havent read any of the other replies yet, but my first thought as I read your grappling with the concept of such a movie was that it could be a damning satirical indictment on the media's intense scrutiny on every boring detail, making the very people Obama and Clinton were reaching out to care less and less about the primaries and, as such, make it less and less relevent. The more we intensely scrutinise something, the less important it becomes. It needs to have space to breathe. I can imagine a Jim Jarmusch-directed version, much like his B&W "Strangers In Paradise". It would never be about the sensationalist moments, but about the beats in between, therefore providing some perspective. I can't see it as being a biography. I could well imagine Obama feeling exhausted of a day and Clinton finishing up buzzing with energy and determination. Not that I know this. I simply imagine these two would feel completely different after each campaign and the irony is, of course, that the exhausted one wins.
I've been thinking the same thing myself about a film. i'm a doc maker & I know those are being made, but I too was thinking what a fiction film and Roger describes what could be a wonderful approach. I too thought of The Queen.
I've been very disturbed in this campaign by the dehumanization of opponents by some ardent supporters on both sides- - One sees it here in some people's vehement reaction to the idea of any humanizing filmic view of the cintons even though I think Roger is clear he's not thinking of a film portraying them as being without flaws - (and I for one am really sick of Nazi comparisons being tossed around all the time which trivializes the evil of Hitler.) and we got a glimpse of it from the other side as well with a few nasty comments about Obama.
Maybe the "as far as I know" comment was indeed planned in advance. But I have envisioned it as a spur of the moment urge - - Hillary's better side emerges first and she says "He's not a Muslim..." Then we go to XCU Hillary's eyes -- suddenly time stands still, sound goes underwaterish, - as if she hears a devilish whisper of how she could turn it to advantage (No I don't mean a little CA devil perched on her shoulder, that would be comedy...One could always make it Bill's voice whispering but I don't really like making him too much puppet master; I don't think you'd have to make it so blatant) ... anyway suddenly time starts again and she adds "...as far as I know."
I have wondered if they ever talk about Bill's faux pas -- does she remonstrate with him or do they just ignore it? - -I just cannot imagine the old Bill doing something like bringing up the Bosnia thing again and saying it was just one time late at night when plenty of people knew that was not the case, AND his comment about being 60 and tired at 11 PM. Some people have suggested he is intentionally sabotaging her which is I guess one way to play it but I don't think it is true. I'm convinced Bill has suffered some cognitive problems after his heart surgery, which happens to a lot of people. That adds another tragic aspect to the story, that he is working so hard but can't help himself from mistakes he never would have made before.
The Obama-related film I would find most interesting out of this campaign so far would be about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright... and actually might focus not as much on Obama as on Wright - - NOT the version we've seen in the selected clips on TV, but a fuller characterization of the man. A sort of combination of the NPC and the Moyers interview and of course the sermons (not just those infamous ones - but The Audacity to Hope and clips like the YouTube one labelled Jeremiah Wright and Total Praise). The trouble is the issues might be just way too complicated Which is the problem in even trying to discuss it with people who don't have much knowledge of African American history & culture, the Black Church, the prophetic tradition etc. But anyway you have a guy who after ca 40 yrs of building up a church and a great network of social ministries, finds himself at the point of retirement suddenly being the most hated figure in the U.S., with a stream of death threats and bomb threats targeting him, his family and the church... the church being inaccurately called "black separatist" and himself " racist" and com and the young activist skeptic who learned from him about faith and love of Jesus, even while at first not renouncing him personally, criticizes him publicly - apparently without having even heard the entire sermons. Yet his criticism has validity - - and part of the tragedy is that the His thoughts & memories could emerge through conversations with family and friends for example it would be great to have a role for Dr. Marty, the elderly white theology professor from U of Chicago who was Wright's teacher and mentor and is his friend and has often attended Trinity UCC - -I don't know how true to life this dramatization would be as I don't know how much they've talked during this, though Dr Marty has written a statement defending Wright's character although disagreeing with him on some issues)
In addition to conversations with humans I would, as in Robert Duvall's wonderful film The Apostle (one of the most honest and human film portrayals of a Christian minister- or of ANY religious person) show Jeremiah talking to God as a continuing motif throughout the film.
I went online to look up your web site and read about your trials with your cancer. I am a three time cancer survivor and thought I might gain some insight. But to my surprise, I found this site, heavy into trashing Hillary. There is a lot of people out there who want her for President of the USA. She is very capable. I am very disappointed in this web site. Why can't you Obama fans just talk about him and what he is going to do and leave Hillary alone? Must be because you don't know what he is going to do.
Ebert responds: I deliberately avoid politics. None of my entries trash Hillary Clinton. Writers of comments are free to write whatever they think--just as you are.
What I have been struck by the most profoundly in this primary is his love for her. I am a big Obama backer and just the look of Bill Clinton strikes me as over slick and not credible. And yet, and yet... I really believe that he loves Hillary. This is the angle. The profound love between a man and a women who know themselves to be equals, who make prodigious plans together and fight tenaciously to have them realized. The strange mixture of friendship (with just a touch of eros) and tenderness... I think that would be a fascinating portrait!
Dear Mr. Ebert,
Thank you for discussing an intriguing idea for a movie with us. It's so good to have you back. I pined for your writing on a weekly basis while you were away. After Hillary's farewell speech last night your idea sounds better than ever, but with much less sadness and regret required. I was just happy that the democrats had two great candidates to offer. They had similar stances, either one would do. But after her speech I realize that the U.S. has lost a great heart, for now.