Diane Lane, left, and Hillary On the matter of, should a TV film be made about Hillary Clinton and released prior to the 2016 elections – when she might be a candidate – I fall on the side of – no. These productions should cease and desist. I’m all for freedom of speech, of course, but I think such a film, from either side of the political landscape, is a problem.
The Republicans argue that, since they believe the media and Hollywood are in bed with Democrats, these productions will be tributes to All Things Great and Hillary, thus would tip the election her way. I’m sure the Hillary side privately is worried that any productions would need to include some treatment of her husband’s blue-dress encounter and other such episodes and, while voters of course will not forget, they don’t need to be reminded in such a dramatic way. There also could be inclusion of Benghazi and other controversies still unsettled in the public record. So, why risk a potential presidency on a couple of hours of seeing Diane Lane portray you in a movie?
From a strict political point of view, no good can come from the movie – either it will give the GOP fodder for crying “foul” or it will put Mrs. Clinton on the defensive for things in the past, and facing a negative campaign from the Republicans will be tough enough without Hollywood putting up another challenge.
Taking a few steps back, Mrs. Clinton certainly has proven herself a very worthy presidential candidate, if she decides to run. I'm sure her folks would be happy with the financial contributions Hollywood surely will send her way and say no thanks to any big screen "help."
Any Hollywood “treatment” has to be a blend of fact and fiction; such is the world of show business. Her life would be dramatized and fictionalized, as if it hasn't been dramatic enough on its own. Question will be how much of the fiction would voters take as fact?
The Republicans argue that, since they believe the media and Hollywood are in bed with Democrats, these productions will be tributes to All Things Great and Hillary, thus would tip the election her way. I’m sure the Hillary side privately is worried that any productions would need to include some treatment of her husband’s blue-dress encounter and other such episodes and, while voters of course will not forget, they don’t need to be reminded in such a dramatic way. There also could be inclusion of Benghazi and other controversies still unsettled in the public record. So, why risk a potential presidency on a couple of hours of seeing Diane Lane portray you in a movie?
From a strict political point of view, no good can come from the movie – either it will give the GOP fodder for crying “foul” or it will put Mrs. Clinton on the defensive for things in the past, and facing a negative campaign from the Republicans will be tough enough without Hollywood putting up another challenge.
Taking a few steps back, Mrs. Clinton certainly has proven herself a very worthy presidential candidate, if she decides to run. I'm sure her folks would be happy with the financial contributions Hollywood surely will send her way and say no thanks to any big screen "help."
Any Hollywood “treatment” has to be a blend of fact and fiction; such is the world of show business. Her life would be dramatized and fictionalized, as if it hasn't been dramatic enough on its own. Question will be how much of the fiction would voters take as fact?
RSS Feed
