Well, today we finally wrapped production on Nailin’ Paylin. Unfortunately, it still needs to be edited, so you won’t get a chance to download it for at least another three hours. As far as pornos that satirize female politicians go, I think it’s pretty good. Way better than my last attempt, 1994’s What Happens in Reno Stays in Reno.

The plot is pretty simple. Each scene represents an episode in Paylin’s life wherein we witness a conversation or decision that steers her closer to the Wal-Mart Machiavelli she is today. For instance, in the first scene she is in college speaking to her Children’s Lit. professor after class. She admits that she just doesn’t understand the assigned reading material. Because she’s cute in kind of a confused way, the professor is consumed with pity and smuggles her copies of “The Giving Tree for Dummies” and “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to The Giving Tree.”

Now, in a normal porno, this where the professor would seduce her and they’d spend the next twenty minutes having wild and uncomfortable-in-real-life sex. And yes, in a way that is what happens. But being a for-serious filmmaker, I wanted to dig deeper than that. In an effort to examine her psychology, whenever a plot scene turns into a sex scene, we see it through the lens of Paylin’s fantasies. Therefore, as the professor embraces her, we zoom in on her longing eyes and the background darkens. When we zoom out again, the professor has magically become Larry Bird. (Believe it or not, we could not find an woodsman who accurately resembled Wayne Gretzky.)

We only strayed from this structure once: the Sarah and Todd wedding night scene. Instead of paying production cost for twenty minutes of movie, and because I didn’t want to come up with anymore Paylin fantasy figures (we’d already approximated Larry Bird, John Corbett, and Jack T. Colton), we simply cut and pasted in the Tonya Harding wedding night video. Yes, the quality suffers, but our preview audiences continued to feed the machines quarters regardless.

I don’t want to give away too many spoilers, but I will say that the film has a 70:30 plot vs. sex ratio. This is the inverse of proper porno proportions, but I’m kind of a maverick myself. My feeling is that pornos do not give you enough time to care about the characters, and I wanted to avoid that particular genre pitfall. I’m no idiot though, sex is expected and required. To overcome this, I tried to come up with creative ways of showing boobs throughout all the talking scenes. For instance, Sarah learns of her VP pick while on a hunting trip with Todd. After hanging up the phone, the polar bear they’re gunning for jumps out of a tree and rips open her blouse, sending her boobies flying everywhere. There is no time to change shirts as she mounts her steed (side-saddle) and gives chase. See? Exhilarating, character shading, AND boob quota filling!

Sadly, ninety minutes is not a lot of time, and there were only so many things we could get to. If this film were an insurance policy, the drama of Paylin’s children would have to pay for its own rape kit because they are not covered here. We also decided to say ‘thanks but no thanks’ to that bridge to nowhere because it led us straight to Nosexville (pop. Not Us). Depending on what country you live in, you may or may not see the ‘Pit-bull, Pig, and Lipstick’ scene because Americans apparently have a strong aversion to watching animals have sex while wearing makeup. This is a shame because, while not sexy, that scene had some major thematic implications.

We did have to fib a little on the facts, though. The biggest offense occurs during the second act as a curious Paylin attends a feminist rally. By law, all pornography must include a lesbian scene and this is the one and only way I came up with to fit one in. Also, our sources couldn’t confirm this in time, but I’m fairly confident the real Paylin does not allow visitors in through the back door. I feel bad, but she’s a Republican. And like filmmakers, Republicans understand that sometimes you have to take Liberties.

What will probably surprise most people is that this film is decidedly pro-Paylin. The reason is simple: I am in love with her. I’m sorry if my interests get in the way of your masturbating, but a man must vote with his heart (or whichever part speaks loudest). Keep in mind that I’ve known her a long time, and the Sarah Paylin I know is much different than the Sarah Paylin you know. To me she’ll always be that young lady who booed my film, Schindler’s List, because it was shot in black and white. I’ve always admired people with guts you know, and that took guts. Big, ignorant, moose-filled guts. Over the years we corresponded many times via long distance telephone calls. I helped out her vocabulary and told her which book adaptations to watch, while her endless ramblings about boys and cars provided me with hidden insights into what kind of stupid crap might entertain Joe and Jane Six-Pack. So if you liked The Phantom Menace, now you know who to thank.

I can only hope that this pornographic film will help men and lesbians everywhere reexamine their feelings about Sarah Paylin, a woman so many have decided to hate based on petty fundamental differences regarding what’s right and what’s evil. Seriously, give her a chance. She’s cute as heck, and underneath her two feet of surface lies the beating heart of a good lady. It might be a little cold, but that’s just the Alaska in her.

(three stars)