Aaron Shouldn't Speak For Him
Aaron Sorkin has optioned a tell-all book on the John Edwards scandal. While Sorkin's best known for writing political drama (A Few Good Men, West Wing, The American President, Charlie Wilson's War), this seems wrong for him. He likes writing about glorious liberals who get caught up in minor scandals hyped by their evil enemies. Edwards wasn't that glorious (kind of slimy, actually--and I mean as a politician) and was involved in an ugly scandal that he lied about, and kept lying about.
Furthermore, the scandal only came out after he was already finished as a candidate for President. Before then, it was only covered by the National Enquirer, who had the truth out there for some time while the mainstream press acted insulted that they should be required to look into it.
If Sorkin tries to blow up Edwards as a major figure brought down by his own hubris, or worse, by a swarming press, it'll be ridiculous. If he wants to tell the actual sleazy story, it'd have to be written as farce.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:01 AM
3 Comments:
Am I alone in thinking the habit of creating films (for theater or TV) about current political figures is a new phenomenon. Granted, Edwards is not current today - but he's less than 2 years out of the limelight.
I didn't watch it, but the film "W" comes to mind - a film about a sitting President. Of course, one can debate whether the Citizens United film about Hilary Clinton was a movie or a political ad, but in general, I'm amazed that people want to make (and apparently some people want to watch) midstream stories about politicians that can't possibly have a filmatic conclusion (because the story isn't over yet).
Did this trend start with Farenheit 9/11 - a documentary, at least by name, but still a feature film about a sitting President?
I take your point except that with respect to Edwards, the story is over. Unless you count the denouement where he gets caught buying drugs/with a [streetwalker] prostitute or appears in a [commercial] porn film
There's a long tradition in drama about using present-day figures, but it's a ticklish enough that, depending on who's in charge, many dramatists understand they have to be careful. My favorite example is Phrynichus, a Greek tragedian who wrote THE CAPTURE OF MILETUS not long after it had been captured by the Persians. The Athenian audience was deeply moved and thus fined the poet for reminding them of a recent tragedy, and declared there'd be no more plays about the subject.
In America, you didn't see that much modern political in the movies for many years because of fear the government would step in (as they did occasionally). Plus if something or someone is controversial, you often stay away. Anything political was generally defanged. TV, if anything, was even more afraid of controversy. Theatre was less fearful and did more direct political stuff.
Also, it's dramatically difficult to take on a real person for two reasons. 1) It's much easier dramatically to make up a fictional character who may be based on a real person 2) He can sue you.
In the last generation or so, both films and TV have been less fearful, so you hear much more about figures of the day, sometimes fictionalized, sometimes not. There are enough works in this category that I couldn't come close to listing them all.
Post a Comment
<< Home