Clinton Edges out Bush
Big Picture columnist Patrick Goldstein has missed the big picture in his 7.25 article about screenwriter Peter Morgan's third and presumably final Tony Blair movie, the first two being The Deal and The Queen. Goldstein said that Morgan "envisions the script," called The Special Relationship, as "an intimate portrait of Blair's relationship with Clinton, circa 1997-2000."
Peter Morgan, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, George Bush
Well and good, but what Goldstein doesn't mention is that the script was first envisioned as a tragic tale of Blair's downfall due to his misguided alliance with Bush over WMDs and the mounting of the Iraq War. Michael Sheen, who portrayed Blair in The Deal and The Queen, told me in the spring of '07 about Morgan's plan to eventually write a Blair-goes-down movie (and about his expectation that he would star in it).
On 10.1.07 Variety's Adam Dawtrey reported that the new movie will focus on Blair's "reaction to the handover of power from Clinton, a natural liberal ally, to Bush, who came from the other end of the political spectrum, which Morgan sees as a pivotal moment when the special relationship between Britain and America changed.'"
What's happened, in short, is that Morgan has gradually lost interest in the Bush-alliance downfall story and shifted focus to the lah-dee-dah Blair-Clinton relationship. It's almost certain that whatever A Special Relationship turns out to be, Morgan will make it work and then some. He's a very sharp writer. But I for one am disappointed. The Iraq War-downfall thing is about a smart guy going astray, drinking the Kool-Aid and screwing his career -- clear and simple. What's the Bush-Clinton story about? Two liberal-minded heads of state come to like each other during the '90s and....what? I don't see what it is.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 26, 2008 at 2:18 PM
comment #1
D.Z. says ...
I guess Morgan's trying to be the British answer to Riefenstahl
Posted by D.Z. at July 26, 2008 5:11 PM
comment #2
shawn says ...
I think this makes sense. If Blair hadn't already fallen under the spell of Clinton, then he wouldn't have been so susceptible to the inferior version (right down to the accent) that Bush presented. Having already posited himself as his own country's equivalent of whoever was ensconced in the Oval Office, he had to change colours when the US did, whether he wanted to or not (somewhere on the 'net you can find pictures of him with his thumbs shoved into the belt loops of his suit pants in imitation of a cowboy gesture he saw Bush make at the ranch: truly pathetic). If Blair hadn't cottoned to Clinton, he wouldn't have had to cotton to Bush, is my thinking. John Major -- and this is the rare, if sole, occasion when he can be mentioned in a positive light -- was, in comparison, his own (decrepit, pathetic, cartoonish simulacrum of a) man.
Posted by shawn at July 26, 2008 6:08 PM
comment #3
BurmaShave says ...
D.Z., reasonable and measured as always.
Posted by BurmaShave at July 26, 2008 6:11 PM
comment #4
adaml says ...
They can't do a movie about Blair's downfall for two reasons.
1. there was no real downfall - he went out still very popular and left at the perfect time because his party's popularity since he left has nosedived and his replacement is a dead man walking.
2. there's a movie about his downfall coming out next year by Roman Polanski. It is called The Ghost, the book is pretty good and although it is "fictional" it is very clear that the former PM Adam Lang is Tony Blair.
Posted by adaml at July 27, 2008 1:55 AM
comment #5
Mgmax says ...
Great, this'll really help me pitch my script about the special relationship of Ramsay MacDonald and Herbert Hoover. Totally puts FDR amd Churchill in perspective.
Posted by Mgmax at July 27, 2008 10:24 AM
comment #6
D.Z. says ...
adam: There was a downfall, actually. Blair's party lost his majority around the same time that the Republicans got kicked out of office. Though he really was in hot water with those leaked documents which admitted he lied about the war on his end, too. He had to leave his position, because the disgrace and the pressure to resign was too much to ignore. I doubt the Brits would be voting for a guy who promises to leave Iraq if they thought Blair's job on the economy was enough for them.
Posted by D.Z. at July 27, 2008 2:41 PM
comment #7
adaml says ...
I think the average Brit would vote for a Blair return in a second if he could stop the logarithmic rise in petrol and curb inflation. They wouldn't care that much about the war in Iraq I'd wager. The broadsheets print plenty of column inches about it but I really don't think the average guy cares a great deal.
Not really sure which documents reveal he lied either. I certainly never heard anything about that.
And the timing of his departure was pretty set in stone from the day he took office. He was never forced out - in fact he stayed on longer than people expected.
Labour's popularity may well have sunk under Blair just as it has under Brown but I somehow doubt it would be as bad as it is now. They just lost one of their very safest seats in the country with a 22% swing. There's absolutely no way Brown can win the next general election, in fact I bet he's not even the guy contesting it.
Posted by adaml at July 27, 2008 3:00 PM
comment #8
D.Z. says ...
adam: If they didn't care, there'd be less protesters per space there than there are here-particularly whenever Blair would meet Bush.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/hutt-j29.shtml
Posted by D.Z. at July 27, 2008 8:52 PM
comment #9
affiliatesreview
says ...
really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review
Posted by affiliatesreview
at May 16, 2011 6:53 AM
comment #10
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability solutions
Posted by janee
at May 17, 2011 7:43 AM