The Left is hard at work on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. One aspect of that effort is a movie called Rodham, to be directed by James Ponstoldt. The film will deal with “Clinton’s time as a lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation.” Did Hillary play a significant role in Watergate? No, but I suppose the filmmakers thought that was more promising material than her years at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock or her adventures as a cattle futures trader.
So the obvious question is, who will have the honor of playing Hillary? So far, Scarlet Johansson is said to be the front-runner. Well, sure: because when someone mentions Hillary Clinton, the first person who comes to mind is Scarlet Johansson.
Scarlet is a natural for the part, but she doesn’t have it sewed up. Reese Witherspoon, Amanda Seyfried and Jessica Chastain are also said to be in the running. Personally, I think Witherspoon should get the part. Her experience playing a lawyer would come in handy.
Will the movie portray Hillary in a favorable light? Just kidding. Ponstoldt explains:
“Regardless of people’s political affiliation or how they feel about Hillary Clinton, you don’t find people who question the quality of her intelligence or her drive,” he added. “I want a wonderful actress who could embody that.”
Right. Scarlet sounds like just the ticket.
Don’t despair, though: there is a chance the film will never be made. This reminds me of when it was announced, some years ago now, that a movie would be made about the life of Helen Thomas. You could call Thomas an old bat, only you might get sued by the old bats’ union. So who, supposedly, was lined up to play her? Michelle Pfeiffer. Thankfully, it never happened.
If you don’t see the resemblance, it is because you are not looking at Thomas with liberal eyes. We can expect a similar transformation if, indeed, the movie about Hillary comes to fruition.