Roger Ebert's Journal

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 know!" an aide cries out from the back of the room. "You can say 'He's not a Muslim, as far as I know'!"

The room erupts with applause, and Hillary and Bill look knowingly at each other, and nod their heads in unison.

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 th