Despite seeming a perfect fit, Carey Mulligan has refused the role of Hillary Clinton in the upcoming biopic Rodham, making way for runners-up like Jennifer Lawrence, Scarlett Johansson, Reese Witherspoon, and Amanda Seyfried. If you didn't notice something weird in that first sentence, read it again. Jennifer Lawrence, Scarlett Johansson, Reese Witherspoon, and Amanda Seyfried are the runners-up for a movie... about Hillary Clinton.
The first thing you might've noticed is that I've just listed the sexiest bombshells in Hollywood, bar a few. While it's certainly true that Clinton is a good-looking woman, the politician has rightly received more attention for her intelligence than her looks. So why, now that she's going to be on the silver screen, does she has to re-imagined as a matinee idol? Not only is that ridiculous, it's an unfair representation of the woman herself.
After all, we're talking about a woman who, when asked what designers she preferred, answered, "Would you ever ask a man that question?" Clinton has been a senator, a First Lady, a Secretary of State, and a straight-up baller — why on earth is there pressure to make her hot onscreen? Since Clinton has always valued her achievements and professionalism, shouldn't the makers of her biopic do the same? She has been so influential in the politics of the last decade, it seems like a debasement of her character to look so through Maxim's Hot 100 for a leading lady.
This is not to say that Witherspoon or Lawrence couldn't play the hell out Hillary Clinton, but there is a noticeable lack of variety amongst those being considered for the role. Given that this will be a substantial, perhaps gritty role for whoever ends up taking it, they should Game of Thrones this shit and choose a lesser-known actress ready to dive into this biopic. I'm waiting with baited breath for Rodham, so, please Hollywood, do me a solid: Pick an actress because she's prepared to step into Hillary's shoes, not because she's pretty and popular.