Aaron Sorkin Destroys Sarah Palin, and 6 Other Stories You'll Be Talking About Today
Also in today's edition of The Broadsheet: A few additions to the Ridiculous Development Rumor Scorecard... Terrence Malick is the new J.J. Abrams (or something)... The single coolest online photo exhibit you'll see all day (if not all year)... and more...
· Screnwriter Aaron Sorkin is giving our own Louis Virtel a run for his money on the recapping beat for Sarah Palin's Alaska, laying utter waste to the governor-turned-rifle-packing reality-TV darling: "I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical. I don't watch snuff films and you make them. You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals. [...] That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain." A must-read for all political persuasions, really. [Huffington Post]
· Listen, Internet, I thought we went through this yesterday: Words mean things, and it's worth exercising some discretion when writing them. For instance, no matter what you hear from whom, however emphatically it's phrased, Lee Daniels is not going to ever remake Federico Fellini's classic Nights of Cabiria. Re-read that sentence. See the proper names and titles and how they don't work together at all? That's because their confluence is bullshit. Lee Daniels. Nights of Cabiria. Not true. Cool? [The Playlist]
· Here's some more ha-ha: Shia LaBeouf and Tom Hardy are now linked to John HIllcoat's long-dead Prohibition indie The Wettest County in the World, in which the duo would play '20s-era bootleggers. Shooting would reportedly begin in the spring -- right around the time The Dark Knight Rises is set to pop. But Hardy's playing the Riddler, no? So confused. [LAT]
· In case last weekend's handling of the Biggest Two-and-a-Half Minute Commercial of the Year didn't give the game away, Fox Searchlight wants to turn Terrence Malick's Tree of Life into an "event" picture. The plan, according to its co-president: "®eleasing a still or a clip, keep the ball in play with different glimpses along the way." Here's an idea: Let us spend the next five months hungrily wondering what the new Terrence Malick movie looks, sounds and feels like instead of turning it into goddamn Harry Potter. I mean, the reason The New World was a bust wasn't because it sucked (though it kind of did), but because Malick's work can't withstand this kind of hype. It's built to envelop you, not prod your expectations and steamroll you into submission. Anyway, this is happening. [LAT]
· @michaelsheen and I are both a little late to them, but if you haven't yet seen these extraordinary color photographs from some of America's most indigent rural regions circa 1939-43, thank him for the tip and prepare to kiss about an hour of your day goodbye. [Denver Post]
· The notoriously shadow equity firm (and military-industrial complex puppetmaster) the Carlyle Group is considering going public to help finance a few of its more ambitious endeavors. I doubt it'll happen, just because of the transparency necessarily to follow, but if it does, that's the kind of investment that might put your kids through college. Until they're blown up with Carlyle-funded bombs that wound up in the wrong hands. But then maybe you can get a refund in court, and you're ahead twice as much! Think it over. [Wired]
· What's shakin' with North Korea? Oh, not much, just the Joint Chefs of Staff wondering why we can't influence China to intervene in Pyongyang. After all, our economic growth only trails theirs by 30 percent or so, and their kids just nabbed the highest standardized test scores in the world, compared to our 23rd place finish. Seriously, why won't they listen to us? [NYT]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Yeah, I was in that Aaron Sorkin blog. I posted this link (below) to a Washington Post article dated October 21, 2004. It's an article covering John Kerry on a hunting trip. It even has a photo of John Kerry and his hunting party carrying their fresh kills. On that blog, I asked the question, "Since John Kerry was doing the same thing Sarah Palin was doing, is John Kerry as bad as Sarah Palin?" Nobody seemed to have an answer for me. Here's that link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50527-2004Oct21.html
You do realize this isn't about the morality of hunting, right? It's about the exploitation of animal killing on a TV show for political gain.
Also: John Kerry! Quaint! You seriously don't have some "I have photos of Obama fishing in Pakistan in the '80s before going home to his native [insert African country here] and sharing his kill with the Pelosis on safari..." conspiracy to toss in here? I mean, this is 2010! Where's your ambition? _Fabricate harder, wackos!_
Like John Kerry wasn't killing an animal for political gain? I consider myself relatively liberal, but there's definitely a double-standard here.
How does one gain politically by killing animals? Should I run for Senate by strangling bunnies??
What Sorkin wrote "destroys Palin"? Give me a break. Sorkin wrote a bunch of insults directed at Palin, hardly something unique. The notion that he destroyed her, as if he wrote a well reasoned piece notable for the weight of its intellectual heft is completely pathetic, just like the left's obsession with Palin's every move.
Hahahaha, you see some sort of grand political play behind Palin killing a caribou on her reality show and you are calling someone else a wacko? Talk about a pot calling a kettle black. If she is videotaped jaywalking are you going to claim she is doing so in order to burnish her anti-establishment credentials?
The only wackos are those who breathlessly analzye every move Palin makes. Let it go already.
No, please read Sorkin's text again and you'll see it's ALL ABOUT animal killing. But leaving the Caribou aside for a moment, what I'm having a hard time understanding is Sorkin's (and other liberals') priorities: I will be the first to attest to Ms. Palin's obvious limitations. The woman is no intellectual giant (God knows) and is completely unsuited for the job of President.
That being said, why is so much time, energy and column space being devoted to this dim bulb from Alaska when the world is full of REAL tyrants who need opposing? Where, for example, is Sorkin's vitriol over Kim Jong Il? Or Hugo Chavez? Or the treatment of women in the Arab world?
It doesn't exist. Why? Because these folks aren't American, and only Americans (read: REPUBLICANS) have anything to answer for.
Where do you get that Palin isnt smart, she is smart like a fox, she has all the media chasing her every move, she has them on the run, just keep on talking about her she loves it. She is certainly smarter than all the loons at MSLSD.
She is smart enough to go out and make a good living without Government or inherited help. She makes all you media trolls look like fools!
I thought Sorkin's article was a parody. He was serious? This author is serious? Are people in NY and LA really this stupid?
Oh ST, I loved The New World. Try my strategy next time: Ignore all the hype and articles and stills, and watch the movie months later. The weakest link was Colin Farrell, but hey the visuals were glorious.
Really, Movieline? You think you're qualified to comment on geopolitical affairs? Let's see:
1. The Carlyle Group going public: Clearly you've watched Fahrenheit 911 a few too many times. "Military-industrial complex puppetmaster"? Less than 7% of its assets involve defense industries. And if it's such a sure thing, I fully expect to see you invest heavily in their stock when they go public. I'll check back here after their IPO to read just how much you bought.
2. China shouldn't listen to the U.S. because they're growing so much faster than the U.S. and their kids are so much smarter: A couple of lessons in math -- A) China may be growing faster (for now), but that's only because they have so far to go. Their per capita income is about $6000, ranking them 130th in the world, versus $46,000 in the U.S. Puts things in perspective, don't you think? B) As the NYT article points out, China only tested some 5100 kids in their most prosperous city, while the American kids were drawn from a diverse strata across the U.S. You don't think the Chinese cherry-picked which kids took the test? Imagine if the U.S. only tested kids in Beverly Hills or the Upper East Side of Manhattan. I have a feeling the results would be a little different.
Maybe you should stick to Hollywood gossip.
Well Said!
Couldn't have said it better!