02 October 2008 @ 10:57 am
Talking Giraffe Movie  






Some people don't test well. I totally get it. If you point a camera at me and ask me to name a Supreme Court decision I disagreed with, I will probably blank too. (Well, not really -- the one that illegally installed Bush in the presidency is rarely far from my mind.) Maybe Sarah Palin is a wonderful executive, smart and canny, capable of inspiring others to their best work, able to negotiate complex networks of ever-shifting political alliances and directing huge forces of manpower and economic strength. Who knows? I don't.free stats

Here's the thing:

When I go to apply for a job, that is, when I go to a studio to pitch an idea for a movie, I am expected to, at the very least, have some basic understanding of what I'm talking about. If I pitch an idea for a movie about, say, a talking giraffe, the studio folk have a reasonable desire that I be able to explain to them why a movie about a talking giraffe is a good idea, and a reasonable expectation that I deliver that explanation in a coherent fashion.

If I can't give a compelling argument for why the Talking Giraffe Movie will be a four-quadrant smash, I don't get the job.

If I go to the studio people and say something like "Talking Giraffe, tall, big movie, long neck, animal, a mammal really, long purple tongue, long box office lines, 'Mommy Mommy, let's go see the Talking Giraffe Movie!' Kids love Giraffes, the horns, on the head, little tufts of hair on top, I spoke to an elderly woman in a nursing home once and she told me her one regret in life was that she had never seen a movie with a talking giraffe, and the smell of the popcorn in the lobby, the excitement of movie-going! A giraffe, talking! Isn't that what it's all about?"

If I do that? I don't get the job.

No, in that pitch meeting, I am required to supply specific data that will back up my claims. I am required to say something like "Several of the most popular movies of all time have prominently featured talking mammals, including 101 Dalmations, The Lion King, The Jungle Book, Shrek and Pinocchio." I am also required to supply a credible plot, one featuring dynamic, interesting characters set on relatable, compelling trajectories, and be able to cite, again, other hit movies where characters like mine and plots like mine have succeeded in the past. That is, I am required to say something like "Talking Giraffe Movie is Gone With The Wind meets Titanic meets The Sound of Music."

Otherwise I don't get the job.

Are curve balls thrown at me during these meetings? Absolutely. Let's say I'm stating what I feel are the strengths of Talking Giraffe Movie and the studio executive says "Does it have to be a giraffe?" The answer is, of course, "Well it couldn't very well be Talking Giraffe Movie if it's not a giraffe," but I can't say that -- the stuido person's role in the meeting is to test the commercial soundness of my pitch, and if he or she has misgivings about the idea of a talking giraffe, I am required to, first, explore the possibilities of some other talking thing (a car, a chair, an orphaned boy) and then work through all the different possibilities until the studio person is brought to the ineluctable conclusion that a talking giraffe is, indeed, the soundest commercial choice for this project.

Otherwise I don't get the job.

While discussing various hit movies, the studio person might detect some amount of cynicism in my pitch, as though maybe Gone With The Wind with a giraffe on an ocean liner in the Alps is merely a soulless, pandering formula I don't really believe in, that is, my pitch is just a spiel to get me a job, and that I don't really have what it takes to actually deliver a hit. That studio person might throw in an oblique question like "Can you name for me a movie that has a great script, but isn't a hit?" A question like this might completely throw me, make me focus on the questioner's hidden motives rather than the actual question itself, and, this far through the process, with so much on the line, I might conceivably draw a blank.  And that happens, and I think of five wonderful examples while I'm walking to my car.  But, if, while I'm still in the office, I give an answer like "Movies, you know, box office, money is essential to a strong box office, and music, Star Wars, editing, dialogue, montage, happy ending, and you know, effects, special, and I've seen a lot of movies, I'm not some guy who's never seen a movie, where I come from we would have movies all the time, growing up on the shores of Crystal Lake where we would catch bluegills from our little Sunfish sailboat, Saturday nights at the Bijoux, I don't know what you're implying, and you know they're not really moving pictures, they're actually a long succession of still photos shown in rapid succession, so box office, with a script, and yes, let's shoot this puppy! Action!"

If I do that?  Sorry, I don't get the job.


 
 
( Post a new comment )
Clayfoot[info]clayfoot on October 2nd, 2008 07:18 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I'm hard pressed to name specific Supreme Court cases without a cheat sheet or Wikipedia. Lawyers, judges, and other law school graduates may know SCOTUS cases by 'X v. Y', but I don't. It was unfortunate interview question. It makes Palin look unnecessary foolish, makes Couric look unnecessarily petulant, and still doesn't reveal Palin's positions on important SCOTUS decisions.
charlequin[info]charlequin on October 2nd, 2008 07:26 pm (UTC)
And yet, I kind of doubt that it would really have been seen as a major gaffe had she been able to accurately describe such a court case despite being unable to name it. I could rattle some off by description pretty easily (say, the recent eminent domain decision, or the decision ruling that capital punishment is not cruel and unusual).

Basically, it's the sort of thing that a person moderately versed in politics can talk about without sounding like an idiot, even if they can't technically answer the exact question.
Clayfoot: hungry[info]clayfoot on October 2nd, 2008 07:28 pm (UTC)
IAWTC
Cerebus[info]sorceror on October 2nd, 2008 07:47 pm (UTC)
That's exactly what Biden did in response to the same question: he described a court ruling he disagreed with.
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on October 2nd, 2008 08:11 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]quitwriting on October 2nd, 2008 09:44 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]sorceror on October 2nd, 2008 09:47 pm (UTC) Expand
craigjclark[info]craigjclark on October 2nd, 2008 07:36 pm (UTC)
Even so, when she was asked which newspapers and magazines she was in the habit of reading before she was tapped to be the vice presidential candidate, she clearly should have been able to give a straight answer. Even if the answer was "I read the Anchorage Star-Press and People Magazine," that would have been preferable to the extremely evasive "all of them, whatever ones have been put before me over the years" answer she did give. Because the only conclusion I can draw from that is that the real answer is "none of them."
Clayfoot[info]clayfoot on October 2nd, 2008 07:39 pm (UTC)
Agreed. I would have just lied and said The Washington Post, New York Times, and... whatever the local paper is called around here, when really I get everything from the radio or the web, now.
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on October 2nd, 2008 07:45 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]quitwriting on October 2nd, 2008 09:47 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on October 2nd, 2008 10:51 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on October 3rd, 2008 12:15 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]quitwriting on October 3rd, 2008 07:04 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]quitwriting on October 2nd, 2008 09:46 pm (UTC) Expand
papajoemambo[info]papajoemambo on October 2nd, 2008 08:29 pm (UTC)


I find it hard to believe you don't remember "BUSH vs GORE" ,or "PEOPLE vs LARRY FLYNT".

I'm not even American,and I know those were American Supreme Court cases, and I'm not expecting to be first runner up for Commander In Chief.

As a proud GOP'er, are *your* standards that low?
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on October 2nd, 2008 08:58 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]papajoemambo on October 2nd, 2008 09:05 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]clayfoot on October 2nd, 2008 09:16 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]papajoemambo on October 2nd, 2008 09:18 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]clayfoot on October 2nd, 2008 09:25 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]clayfoot on October 2nd, 2008 09:09 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]papajoemambo on October 2nd, 2008 09:14 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]quitwriting on October 2nd, 2008 09:47 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]papajoemambo on October 2nd, 2008 09:52 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]inhumandecency on October 3rd, 2008 08:16 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]papajoemambo on October 3rd, 2008 02:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Respice finem[info]malsperanza on October 2nd, 2008 08:45 pm (UTC)
Aside from not knowing specific court decisions (with or without names), she seems unclear about the role of the VP in government.

"...As a vice president, if I’m so privileged to serve, [I] wouldn’t be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.”

Setting aside all the other things a VP does (courtesy of the current guy's expansionism) is that it breaks ties in the Senate. Legislation overturning a court decision may come to a tie vote. New legislation can be initiated by the Executive branch, and presumably a VP might be involved in that. Not to mention that the Senate confirms SC appointments. You don't have to have gone to law school to know these things. 6th grade civics class generally covers them, although not, apparently, in the Wasilla public schools.

I saw nothing petulant in Couric's question, unless it's petulant to expect a candidate for the vice presidency to have more knowledge and better ideas about the role of government than a 10-year-old. It's dubious to accuse Couric of petulance because Palin couldn't answer a question of fundamental importance with even minimal credit.

I just wrote a rant about the GOP, but it's discourteous, so I'll post it to my own LJ.

Sailor Tweek: Addiction[info]sailortweek on October 2nd, 2008 07:24 pm (UTC)
In an effort to be the informed voter, I tried to wacth that video...2 minutes in and I thought about how this lady is making more than I do. I begin to get pissed. I would have thrown my coffee cup acrossed the room, but then I would have lost my coffee.

Your entry really hit the nail on the head. If you don't mind, I'm sharing it with some lj friends. I'm trying to figure out how this woman is good for politics. She couldn't answer any of the questions given to her! Coherent or not, she had no idea what the interviewers were asking her. Does she think this job is to sit there, look pretty, and wait for McCain to "buy the farm"?

It scares me and angers me to no end that this lady clearly does not comprehend the job she is gunning for. I take that kind of thing (way too) personally.

edited for spelling errors...sorry


Edited at 2008-10-02 07:31 pm (UTC)
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on October 2nd, 2008 07:36 pm (UTC)
Share away -- that's why Al Gore invented this thing.
(no subject) - [info]clayfoot on October 2nd, 2008 07:39 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]sailortweek on October 2nd, 2008 07:48 pm (UTC) Expand
adam_0oo[info]adam_0oo on October 2nd, 2008 07:30 pm (UTC)
Speaking of Palin, you forgot to mention Madagascar, what with the talking giraffe.
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on October 2nd, 2008 07:35 pm (UTC)
Not even in the top 100.
[info]mr_effulgence on October 2nd, 2008 08:01 pm (UTC)
I don't get the job

Wouldn't it be

I shouldn't get the job?
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on October 2nd, 2008 08:09 pm (UTC)
Like I say, I'm trying to keep the question of actual qualifications out of it. Maybe she's a brilliant governor who would do a terrific job of running the US in a time of great danger and uncertainty, and maybe Talking Giraffe Movie would be a surprise smash hit that would rewrite the rules for talking animal movies for all time. But the world would never know, because there's no freakin' way I'd get that job.
(no subject) - [info]mimitabu on October 2nd, 2008 08:32 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]schwa242 on October 2nd, 2008 09:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Zod Microbe[info]zodmicrobe on October 2nd, 2008 09:09 pm (UTC)
There is absolutely no way anybody in her position shouldn't be able to rattle off five or six decisions from the Supreme Court off the top of her head. Brown v Board of Ed? Bush v Gore? Lawrence v Texas? Bowers v Hardwick? (The last two apply more to me as a gay dude, so I know them well. But Sarah has a gay friend, doesn't she? Somewhere?)

Also, not that it matters: Dred Scott? Miranda v Arizona (you know those rights you get read when you get arrested?) US v Nixon?
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on October 3rd, 2008 12:22 am (UTC)
But again, obviously what's going through her mind is not "Hmm, Supreme Court decisions I've disagreed with" but "Uh-oh, this is a test, isn't it? What do I say, what is she expecting me to say, oh no, I'm not saying anything, I'd better say something, this is going to look really awkward if I don't say anything, what was it the McCain people told me to say," etc.
Drew[info]kidpernicious on October 3rd, 2008 08:10 am (UTC)
To be fair, the question was what decisions did she disagree with, aside from Roe v. Wade. Most of those bigger-profile cases (Brown v. Board, Miranda) are such indisputably GOOD decisions she couldn't throw them out there, something as bad as the Dred Scott decision is so obviously bad decision mentioning it would be inane, and Bush v. Gore quite clearly resolved in a fashion she had to dig as per her party. It does actually filter down the list of likely answers (at least for someone who clearly doesn't bother staying up on SCOTUS news).

Still incredibly dumb response, obviously. She seems wired to throw up bullshit word clouds in response to every potentially difficult question instinctively. It'd be funnier if there weren't so many people that actually liked her. Barf.
John Rodgers[info]obijuan on October 2nd, 2008 09:55 pm (UTC)
I just saw this in an article on CNN:

--- SNIP ---
Palin said Tuesday that she's different.

"I think they're just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying, 'You know what? It's time that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency,' and I think that that's kind of taken some people off-guard," she said in a radio interview with conservative host Hugh Hewitt.
--- SNIP ---

Oh my stars, she just made your point for you.

I would think after 8 years of President Bush taking "disengaged" to previously unseen levels, the American populace would realize that putting another "average American" in the White House is probably a bad idea.

It boggles me to think that we (as a people) aren't demanding that only the best and brightest among us be allowed to hold office, and instead focus on things like race, gender, religious affiliation, and fashion sense. Instead of demanding the highest standards of our potential leaders, we're setting the expectation bar so low enough so that all it will take is a GED and the ability to parrot talking points to get elected.

It's little wonder our country is a screwed up as it is. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
(Anonymous) on October 2nd, 2008 10:57 pm (UTC)
You're such an elitist!
--Ed.
(no subject) - [info]obijuan on October 2nd, 2008 11:00 pm (UTC) Expand
penelope danger incorporated[info]mcbrennan on October 2nd, 2008 10:58 pm (UTC)
Like I said in one of my dozens of blog posts the other day, about three months ago the Supreme Court slashed the Exxon Valdez damages verdict from $5 billion to $500 million, which was a devastating blow to thousands of Alaskans, and as commercial fishermen, Palin and her husband were eligible to collect, although they didn't elect to do so (one suspects they just forgot). There's a recent decision, with real-world impact in the state she ostensibly governs, and she didn't have to know the name of the decision to talk about it, but she couldn't even manage that. Which suggests either she's staggeringly ignorant or she crumples under the slightest pressure--and somebody needs to tell her and the right-wing that Katie Couric is indeed the "slightest pressure". An actual tough journalist? A hostile foreign leader who doesn't think she's hot? Doom.

Edited at 2008-10-02 10:59 pm (UTC)
Doug[info]sevenpsychosis on October 2nd, 2008 11:20 pm (UTC)
Its an act, all the beauty queens do it to appear non-threatening.
Pope Buck I[info]popebuck1 on October 3rd, 2008 12:24 am (UTC)
and somebody needs to tell her and the right-wing that Katie Couric is indeed the "slightest pressure".

Not that they'd believe it. There was one bozo yesterday who was trying to argue that "So, what magazines and newspapers do you read?" was TOTALLY an unfair "gotcha!" question, rather than the kind of softball question you'd expect to get from Parade magazine.

The Republican core has totally drunk the Kool-Aid on this one. It's really scary. They're completely divorced from reality.
(no subject) - [info]mcbrennan on October 3rd, 2008 12:40 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]kidpernicious on October 3rd, 2008 08:16 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]popebuck1 on October 4th, 2008 01:09 am (UTC) Expand
Doug[info]sevenpsychosis on October 2nd, 2008 11:08 pm (UTC)
I am very sold on your talking giraffe movie.
Andrew[info]kornleaf on October 2nd, 2008 11:41 pm (UTC)
Drew[info]kidpernicious on October 3rd, 2008 08:17 am (UTC)
It's an honest shame Palin didn't manage a stammering meltdown tonight. I was really hoping for a complete mental derailing at some point. No such luck.