‘We Made The Hair Less Cartoonish Than It Actually Is’


Last night/this morning.

The first official teaser is released for The Comey Rule starring Brendan Gleeson as Donald Trump.

The Comey Rule writer-director Billy Ray says:

“There was a lot of conversation with the hair team and the makeup team and the costume team: How do we accurately depict Donald Trump without making him a cartoon? Because so many people feel that he is one.

And everywhere that we could, we dialed it down. We made the contrast between the bags under his eyes and the orange skin softer than it actually is.

We made the hair a little less cartoonish than it actually is. We made the suits fit a little bit better. We went out of our way to play fair because we felt we owed that to the public.”

First Look at The Comey Rule: The TV Drama That Will Enrage Trump (Vanity Fair)

Pic: Showtime

Sponsored Link

33 thoughts on “‘We Made The Hair Less Cartoonish Than It Actually Is’

  1. class wario

    boy it’s so great living in this literal hell timeline that i want to watch a movie about it!

  2. Dr.Fart

    what’s all that nonsense about toning down how Trump really looks for the character? and saying they owe that to the public? what the hell does that mean? owe what to the public?

    1. paul

      my thinking is that taking Trump’s ‘style’ and applying it to another person would elicit hilarious laughter.

      1. Dr.Fart

        yea, good point. like, hard to take it seriously if they fully replicate his nonsense carry-on? but “we owe it to the public” ??

        1. paul

          yeah, the owing to anyone isn’t true, it’s so people don’t laugh at a dramatic film so they lose money and clout when it comes to awards.

          1. Dr.Fart

            of course! yea, didnt think of that. good point. intersting to see it now, i hope they arent too sensitive about how they portray him. there’s no serious part to the real trump. id hate to see him portrayed as some kind of statesman.

  3. scottser

    got to hand it to brendan gleeson, that’s a pretty impressive depiction.
    bigly impressive.

    1. Vanessanelle

      although I never doubted he’d pull it off

      and I’m glad they put a bitta sense into the hair, otherwise we’d be treating it as a skit and laughing along as a comedy performance. Like a Muppet Movie

      and not a genuine drama/doc

  4. f_lawless

    No doubt Gleeson will give an impressive performance, but at the end of the day he’ll be doing the American public a disservice. Based on Comey’s memoir, the show is bound to be a warmed-over version of the discredited ‘Russian collusion’ narrative again. The director has said he’s on a mission to sway voters before the election. Objective truth can take a back seat.


    1. Art Vandelay

      “Objective truth can take a back seat.” – can’t you say that about *everything* now though? Left, right, centre?

    2. Nigel

      ‘Discredited.’ Ell Oh Ell.
      You’re certainly not going to do objective truth a service by reducing everything to a series of competing naratives.

        1. Nigel

          That however messed up things might be, there’s always room for them to get worse, so people shouldn’t act as if none of it effects them.

          1. Mary (Never) Wong

            Good points Nigel. There seems to be a special class of clown now who specializes in sort of whataboutery commentary, I can think of at least 4 on here. Maybe 6.
            Like, everyone’s at it, why don’t we, sort of thing.

          2. italia'90

            Things did get messed up, so messed up in fact, hence we have Trump in power.
            Things got even worse, but to blame Trump alone, without pointing out the obvious causes of Trump is wilful deceit.
            Why do they keep voting to increase his budgets?
            America is an oligarchy and that is an objective truth.

          3. Nigel

            A lot of people wilfully ignored what the right were doing in the US for years, but also elsewhere, which is how we got Trump. They want the whole world to be an oligarchy.

          4. italia'90

            For the past four years you have been beating the Reds Under the Bed cold war propaganda on here.
            Even earlier today you attempted it.
            Now you’re saying it’s the Right that made Trump powerful and not Putin… “all roads lead to Putin”, Nancy Pelosi and yourself kept repeating.
            I’m still waiting to see if the Skripals die from the Novichok poisoning that killed the imaginary ducks that didn’t Kill the kids who fed said imaginary ducks with poisoned bread in Salisbury.
            Remember them?
            The CIA pushed that lie and then Trump escalated the bombing in Syria as a direct result of false intelligence and increased political tensions with Russia and the EU.
            Where did we see that CIA tactic before?


          5. Nigel

            Putin isn’t a Red, and had nothing to do with the rise of the radical authoritarian right in the US and the UK, and any recent succesful Russian interference in political processes was most likely opportunistic. That’s seperate, of course, from the laundering of Russian mob money and politicians palling around with and doing favours for Russian oligarchs. If western intelligence services are up to anything, all they’ve succeeded in doing is making themselves look weak and ineffective.

          6. italia'90

            Ell Oh Ell
            It didn’t take much, but they certainly fooled
            enough Clintonistas and the public at large, into believing the whole Russia collusion hoax that Trump & Putin stole the election and corrupted US democracy.
            I can tell from your previous form on here, you will never admit that you were wrong, but at least try stick with the facts and not the “official Security Agency” narrative.

            You might start now if you like?
            This was all known and reported as early as March 2017.

            In regards to the discredited Steele Report, it was always thought the Russian sub source was a Russian deep in the Kremlin. Turns out he was a Russian analyst at the Brookings Institute, hiding in the shadows of a Laufman immunity agreement for a Democrat subcontractor.
            The collusion narrative was not fabricated by Igor Danchenko or the “Russians” but was concocted by Steele and associates in the UK and US.








            Twitter accounts of some proper journalists below:

          7. Nigel

            My attitude to the Russian collusion thing has always been ‘let’s see what the report says .’ My response to the report was: ‘ well there you go.’ If you want my thoughts on collusion and interference, I refer you ti the Mueller Report. As I recall at the time there was much fun to be had showing how it totally cleared Trump of all wrongdoing and Russia of all interference. Can’t wait for them to finally blow the lid off Obamagate. Pain is coming!

  5. italia'90

    “In his op-ed, Robert Mueller accurately recites Rosenstein’s infamous phrase directing him to examine any “links or coordination” between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. It is disheartening that a former FBI director and an acting attorney general did not recognize that “links or coordination” is not sufficient legal predication for a government investigation of U.S. citizens.

    The actual standard for launching an investigation is reasonable suspicion that a U.S. citizen is acting as an “agent on behalf of a foreign entity.” There is no documentation released to date, or testimony offered publicly, that reveals such a standard was ever met regarding anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign. Sorry, Mr. Mueller, this raises questions of legitimacy.

    Mr. Mueller did not further help his quest for legitimacy when, after concluding there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, he allowed a curious listicle in his report of all the ways the president might have obstructed his investigation. Since he was unwilling to file criminal charges or advise Congress to impeach, it came across as little more than sour grapes that called to mind former FBI director James Comey’s unwarranted, public recitation of Hillary Clinton’s sins after refusing to seek her indictment for using a personal email server for State Department communications. Both were an abuse of prosecutorial authority and out-of-bounds incursions into presidential politics far more disruptive than anything the Russians have tried. Both called into question the legitimacy of their actions.

    Mr. Mueller takes solace in the fruits of eight convictions/pleadings of U.S. citizens as a result of the special counsel efforts. But here is the key question Americans must ask: Are we okay with convictions that stem from an investigation that apparently had no legal basis for even being started? The FBI and local police might be able to find copious evidence of all kinds of crimes if allowed to walk into anyone’s home or business for no reason. Our Constitution, thankfully, prevents that…”


    1. Nigel

      That’s odd, because if you actually read the report there are many, many instances of cullusion. It’s just that he felt that they did not amount to a criminal conspiracy. Nor was he ‘unwilling’ to file charges against the President, he wasn’t allowed to. As for legitimacy – since none of those eight prosecutions were thrown out because of a lack of legitimacy, I suspect the legal analysis is a bit off there. If anyone has a problem with the way Special prosecuters work, they need to take it up with the Republicans who appointed them.

  6. italia'90

    It’s not over yet, so we’ll see.
    Either way the damage was done in 2016
    and it looks like both the CIA and the FBI are doubling down.
    I may be wrong but it seems to me like a few vendettas
    have been played out in the background?
    Comey and Brennan for instance.
    2021 can’t come quick enough.

    I’m starting me holiers today and will try to ignore
    the dumpster fires everywhere for a few.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link