The Reagans

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
72,098
Reaction score
23,062
Location
Killjoy Central
CBS and Reagan

Emmett Tyrrell

October 23, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. --
Sir Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill, is in Washington, lecturing and writing. Tapped after the death of Churchill's son, Randolph, to write the authorized biography of this colossal figure, Gilbert produced eight volumes (not counting three volumes of documents), and he has written other books on Churchill, Napoleon, the Holocaust and other matters. He is among the most illustrious scholars of the day -- and the British historian, Paul Johnson, calls him the most "industrious" and exact of historians.

A few days back, over dinner, the question came up of Churchill's actual life, as opposed to the legends that people, often revisionist writers, tack onto his life. In the train of a great figure such as Churchill, there will always follow fabulists and ignoramuses creating legends about him, believing absurdities about him, building up a debris of myths around the monument's feet.

Even after Gilbert has devoted decades to chronicling with the utmost precision the life of Churchill, the biographer's work with Churchill is not finished. Over dinner, someone observed that Gilbert will naturally have to continue for the rest of his life to assess the accuracy of new interpretations of Churchill, paying always close attention to the evidence.

Ah yes, the evidence of a historic life or, for that matter, a historic event -- that is to say, the relevant documents, the established facts, interviews, diaries, other historical writing -- these are the materials with which history establishes an accurate image of historic figures large and small.

I thought about "the evidence" this week when I read that CBS is about to broadcast a two-part "miniseries," "The Reagans." It depicts happenings and conversations in Ronald Reagan's life that never took place. The producers of "The Reagans" do not deny that. They present one of the great presidents of the 20th century as a dope and not always a very nice dope.

One of the complaints already raised against "The Reagans" is that it is the creation of liberal Hollywood. Oh, the Hollywood artistes involved in creating this miniseries deny that their politics matter. Whether or not they do, despite historians' rising esteem for the 40th president and despite the evidence that Reagan reversed America's economic decline to trigger its longest period of economic recovery simultaneous with winning the Cold War, Hollywood's recollection of Reagan as a dunce endures. He still awaits his Sir Martin Gilbert.

Reagan's momentous eight-year presidency covering a near-death assassination attempt, his enormous arms buildup, his diplomatic demarche with Moscow, his reformation of economic policy, his reelection, two off-year elections, and attending to guerrilla wars and terrorism worldwide, all pale in the mind of the Hollywood dramatist in comparison with these gigantic matters: Reagan was inattentive to his staff, had a bossy wife, and was supposedly hard-hearted and neglectful of the inchoate AIDS epidemic. These are major themes in "The Reagans."

Interestingly, President Franklin Roosevelt suffered the same slurs and still does, though pro-Roosevelt historians have put a sunny face on the first two slurs. The famed disorganization of the New Deal staff was a stroke of genius by Roosevelt. His impetuous wife was a liberal exemplar. As for Roosevelt's neglect of certain contemporary problems -- dealing with Hitler's Final Solution is the one most frequently mentioned nowadays -- even the pro-Roosevelt historians are critical, sounding like those now criticizing Reagan's neglect of AIDS. I would defend both Roosevelt and Reagan with the same response. They had their hands full with war and the economy.

To dramatize Reagan's alleged neglect of AIDS, "The Reagans" depict the president making a moralistic statement about AIDS victims that he never made. Even the scriptwriter admits the statement was a fiction. An even more contemptible slur included in this miniseries about a man who at the age when most are in retirement ran the largest corporation on earth is the stress the Hollywoodians put on Reagan's supposed forgetfulness.

This is high drama for a Hollywood scriptwriter -- for, you see, Reagan now ekes out his daily life through the fog of Alzheimer's disease. Actually, whenever I was around Reagan, his forgetfulness was no greater than that of most busy adults. A bestselling book of his lifetime correspondence, "Reagan: A Life in Letters," shows a sharp mind at work right up to retirement.

Yet the 92-year-old former president does have Alzheimer's disease. His wife, family and friends live with great sadness, and for Mrs. Reagan grave burdens. So what can we say in the end of CBS's broadcast just now of this anti-historical life of a great man? We can say A) the child-like mind of the Hollywood artistes ignored "the evidence," and B) CBS and the producers of "The Reagans" have publicly committed an act of remarkable cruelty.

It is on a par with claiming Roosevelt's paralysis somehow impaired his performance in office. Don't wince. In point of fact, there were primitives who made this claim about Roosevelt, and it is not surprising that the creators of "The Reagans" should come off as so many Roosevelt haters. They are philistines and ignoramuses, and haters of the first rank.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a joke this will be. Why even make a tv show that's not based on real events? Only reason would be to paint Reagan in a bad light. At least the makers of this piece of crap admit that they made up a ton of it. :roll:
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Conner
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
36,416
Reaction score
34,230
Location
Charlotte, NC
Sounds pretty crappy.

At least they could showcase the Iran contra affair and Lebanon, and not use garbagy fictional accounts involving a very influential man.
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
72,098
Reaction score
23,062
Location
Killjoy Central
Grumbling Trickles Down From Reagan Biopic
By JIM RUTENBERG

ASHINGTON, Oct. 20 —
When it comes to their entertainment shows, the major broadcast networks tend to shy away from political controversy, lest they offend viewers, sponsors or congressmen with sway over federal regulators.

Next month, however, CBS will buck that convention with "The Reagans," a two-part mini-series that steps squarely into the spirited — and often partisan — debate over President Ronald Reagan's legacy.

As snippets about the television movie circulate in Washington and Los Angeles, friends and relatives of the ailing Mr. Reagan are expressing growing concern that this deconstruction of his presidency is shot through a liberal lens, exaggerating his foibles and giving short shrift to his accomplishments.

That the part of Mr. Reagan is played by James Brolin, who is married to the conservative bête noire Barbra Streisand and who makes no secret of his own liberal politics, only intensifies their fears.

"I fully expect this mini-series will be largely unfavorable to my dad," Michael Reagan, a radio talk-show host who reaches two million people each week, wrote recently in a column posted on various Web sites. He added, "Hollywood has been hijacked by the liberal left."

Marlin Fitzwater, who was the White House press secretary for two of Mr. Reagan's eight years in office, asked rhetorically in an interview: "Does it show he had the longest and strongest recovery in postwar history? That the economy, stimulated by the tax cuts, was creating something like 200,000 jobs a month, for years?"

In many ways the film follows the standard television biopic formula, sensationalizing the more controversial moments of the subject's life. But given that the main subject is a Republican hero, one who is now suffering from Alzheimer's disease, the events chosen for depiction — and those left out — are sure to come under harsh scrutiny from Mr. Reagan's supporters, who are increasingly protective of his reputation and already suspicious of Hollywood.

"The Reagans," according to the final version of the script obtained by The New York Times, does give Mr. Reagan most of the credit for ending the cold war and paints him as an exceptionally gifted politician and a moral man who stuck to his beliefs, often against his advisers' urgings.

But there is no mention of the economic recovery or the creation of wealth during his administration, key accomplishments to his supporters. Nor does it show him delivering the nation from the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years, as his supporters say he did.

The details the producers do choose to stress — like Mr. Reagan's moments of forgetfulness, his supposed opinions on AIDS and gays, his laissez-faire handling of his staff members — often carry a disapproving tone.

Nancy Reagan, who is played by Judy Davis, does not get light treatment either. While the script portrays Mrs. Reagan as a loyal and protective wife, it also shows her as a control addict, who set the president's schedule based on her astrologer's advice and who had significant influence over White House personnel and policy decisions.

CBS officials and the filmmakers said the mini-series would ultimately be judged as fair when it is shown on Nov. 16 and 18. They said they were simply trying to tell a historically accurate story that included the good along with the ugly, all from respected biographies and other source material. "This was very important for me, to document everything and give a very fair point of view," said Leslie Moonves, the CBS chairman.

The film's producers, Neil Meron and Craig Zadan — who have done a number of successful made-for-television movies including those about Judy Garland and Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis — said no major event was depicted without at least two confirming sources, though they said they took dramatic liberty in some spots. The film was approved by lawyers at CBS and the main production studio, Sony Pictures Television.

"It's not painted in black and white," Mr. Zadan said, "but in blacks, whites and grays, many variations of gray."

The plot begins tamely enough. A dashing Ronald Reagan, recently divorced from Jane Wyman and the president of the Screen Actor's Guild, is introduced to a young Nancy Davis by the director Mervyn LeRoy and quickly falls in love. There are a number of admiring scenes, including those showing Mr. Reagan rebuffing his advisers to push ahead with negotiations with the Soviets and others depicting him as a devoted husband. And the movie accepts his assertion that he knew nothing of the illegal diversion of funds to the contras fighting in Nicaragua.

"The Reagans" takes sides on plenty of issues and incidents that are vigorously contested by biographers, and some that are historically questionable. In one early scene Mr. Reagan's talent agent, Lew Wasserman, tells him that his anti-Communist activism is hurting his career. "People know you're an informer for the blacklist," Mr. Wasserman says. Mr. Reagan replies, "I've never called anybody a Commie who wasn't a Commie."

Mr. Reagan was long suspected of supplying names to the Hollywood blacklist but denied it. F.B.I. records show he cooperated with agents investigating communism in Hollywood, but historians disagree about whether his assistance was of any real significance.

The script also accuses Mr. Reagan not only of showing no interest in addressing the AIDS crisis, but of asserting that the patients of AIDS essentially deserved their disease. During a scene in which his wife pleads with him to help people battling AIDS, Mr. Reagan says resolutely, "They that live in sin shall die in sin" and refuses to discuss the issue further.

Lou Cannon, who has written several biographies about Mr. Reagan, said such a portrayal was unfair. "Reagan is not intolerant," he said. "He was a bit asleep at the switch, but that's not fair to have him say something that Patrick Buchanan would say."

Elizabeth Egloff, a playwright who wrote the final version of the script, acknowledged there was no evidence such a conversation took place. But, she said, "we know he ducked the issue over and over again, and we know she was the one who got him to deal with it." She added that other biographies noted that Mr. Reagan had trouble squaring homosexuality with the Bible. In "Dutch," Mr. Reagan's authorized biography, the author, Edmund Morris, writes that Mr. Reagan once said of AIDS, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."

Another likely controversial moment in the television movie comes in a scene that implies strongly that President Reagan's inspiration for the Star Wars space-based system was a 1940 movie in which he starred, "Murder in the Air." Some experts have said that the film may have influenced Mr. Reagan's decision to sign off on the program. Others have dismissed such claims as overemphasized by liberals.

Mrs. Reagan, meanwhile, comes across in the script as her husband's protector, constantly fending off ambitious and amoral political operatives. But in depicting the control she exerted, not only over his schedule but over more substantive decisions, the television movie makes some controversial claims.

The final shooting script heavily implies that Mrs. Reagan, in agitating for the resignation of Alexander M. Haig Jr., President Reagan's first secretary of state, went so far as to write his resignation letter. But no account holds that Mrs. Reagan wrote such a letter. After a consultation in response to a reporter's question, the filmmakers decided last week to remove that scene from the film, saying they would have deleted it in any case.

Mrs. Reagan's associates said she was most likely to be upset about scenes in which she is shown keeping her children at arm's length and those in which she takes prescription pills, as detailed in "The Way I See It," the memoir of the Reagans' daughter, Patti Davis.

Mrs. Reagan had no comment for this article. John Barletta, a former Secret Service agent who served the Reagans and maintains contact with Mrs. Reagan, said he had spoken with her about the film. "She kind of said, `Well, hopefully it won't be that bad,' " he said.

He said he had his own concerns about the film because "when it comes to the Hollywood people, they're all very liberal against him."

Mr. Zadan and Mr. Meron, acknowledge their liberal politics, as do the stars of the television movie, Mr. Brolin and Ms. Davis. But Mr. Meron, said: "This is not a vendetta, this is not revenge. It is about telling a good story in our honest sort of way. We all believe it's a story that should be told."

Nonetheless some involved in the making of "The Reagans" said in interviews that they were girding for a considerable outcry from some of Mr. Reagan's more die-hard supporters.

"With the climate that has been in America since Sept. 11, it appears, from the outside anyway, to not be quite as open a society as it used to be," Ms. Davis said during an interview at her hotel in Montreal. "By open, I mean as free in terms of a critical atmosphere, and that sort of ugly specter of patriotism."

She added, "If this film can help create a bit more questioning in the public about the direction America has been going in since the 1970's, I guess then I think it will be doing a service."

Mr. Brolin said he, too, hoped that the film would prompt Americans to be more suspect of their leaders. "We're in such a pickle right now in our nation," he said, "that maybe if learn something from this."

Mr. Morris, Mr. Reagan's biographer, said he had some misgivings about the mini-series, given the political leanings of the producers and actors.

"The provenance of the movie makes me suspect it will not be fair," he said. But he added that it could also work as a reality check on Mr. Reagan's record.

"The best thing one can say about a movie of this kind," he said, "is it does redress or counteract the sentimentalities that are being perpetrated all of the time in his name by his fanatical followers."
 

SirStefan32

Krycek, Alex Krycek
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Posts
18,482
Reaction score
4,848
Location
Harrisburg, PA
Michael (Ronnie's son) was talking about this. I am outraged that they are attempting to defame Ronnie's character.
 

Chaz

observationist
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
11,327
Reaction score
7
Location
Wandering the Universe
Liberals will stop at nothing to defame this man.

He stood against the liberal socialists, was successful and well like by the American people.
They have no choice but to degrade and tell lies about him to rewrite history.


He was an eternal optimist and believed in the goodness and greatness of the American people when relieved of the shackes of government.
He showed the lowering taxes increases prosperity and tax revenue.
He believed with all his heart that America is the greatest nation on earth.

I think he was a great American and a successful president. Did he make some mistakes? Sure he did. Did he make them out of malice or ill intent? I don't think so. Whatever he did it was because he thought it was best for the country.

Godspeed Mr. President. Our prayers are with you until the end.
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
72,098
Reaction score
23,062
Location
Killjoy Central
Originally posted by SirChaz
Liberals will stop at nothing to defame this man.

He stood against the liberal socialists, was successful and well like by the American people.
They have no choice but to degrade and tell lies about him to rewrite history.


He was an eternal optimist and believed in the goodness and greatness of the American people when relieved of the shackes of government.
He showed the lowering taxes increases prosperity and tax revenue.
He believed with all his heart that America is the greatest nation on earth.

I think he was a great American and a successful president. Did he make some mistakes? Sure he did. Did he make them out of malice or ill intent? I don't think so. Whatever he did it was because he thought it was best for the country.

Godspeed Mr. President. Our prayers are with you until the end.

Great post. :thumbup:

What really gets me is the fact that the producers made up stuff that Reagan never said. Why? I've been to the Reagan Museum in Simi Valley and they've got practically everything the man ever said displayed somehow in that place. No need to make stuff up. Ridiculous.
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Conner
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
36,416
Reaction score
34,230
Location
Charlotte, NC
Originally posted by SirChaz
Liberals will stop at nothing to defame this man.

He stood against the liberal socialists, was successful and well like by the American people.
They have no choice but to degrade and tell lies about him to rewrite history.


He was an eternal optimist and believed in the goodness and greatness of the American people when relieved of the shackes of government.
He showed the lowering taxes increases prosperity and tax revenue.
He believed with all his heart that America is the greatest nation on earth.

I think he was a great American and a successful president. Did he make some mistakes? Sure he did. Did he make them out of malice or ill intent? I don't think so. Whatever he did it was because he thought it was best for the country.

Godspeed Mr. President. Our prayers are with you until the end.

BS generalizations.

I don't condone this type of baseless character assasination, and anyone with a conscience shouldn't.
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
72,098
Reaction score
23,062
Location
Killjoy Central
Originally posted by Dback Jon
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102110,00.html

Will be on Showtime instead.


Wimps

Wimps?

It shouldn't even be shown on Showtime.

The writers came right out and said they made a bunch of stuff up in this piece of garbage "movie."

Why can't they make an accurate portrayal of the Reagans...oh, that's right...it's being put on by a bunch of liberals. Makes about as much sense as having the far right do a Clintons movie-of-the-week.

I wouldn't want a Clintons movie on CBS or Showtime if it was blatant lies and made purely to tarnish the man's Presidency.

This garbage should be trashed - period.
 

Dback Jon

Killer Snail
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
80,707
Reaction score
39,819
Location
Scottsdale
The reasons I am calling them wimps is that they melted in the face of critism. CBS should have known from the start that this would be a touchy subject, and exercised more control over it, instead of waiting until two weeks before the broadcast.

If they weren't willing to take the heat, why start such a project in the first place?
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
72,098
Reaction score
23,062
Location
Killjoy Central
Originally posted by Dback Jon
The reasons I am calling them wimps is that they melted in the face of critism. CBS should have known from the start that this would be a touchy subject, and exercised more control over it, instead of waiting until two weeks before the broadcast.

If they weren't willing to take the heat, why start such a project in the first place?

Good points.

They had to know which way the project was going when Mr. Barbara Streisand was hired to be Ronald. :rolleyes:
 

SirStefan32

Krycek, Alex Krycek
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Posts
18,482
Reaction score
4,848
Location
Harrisburg, PA
Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
Mr. Barbara Streisand

LOL:biglaugh: :thumbup:

What would be even cooler is hiring former president Clinton and her husband Bill to be Ronald and Nancy.:D

On the other hand, if somebody decides to make movie about the Clintons, they should hire Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh to be the Clintons.:thumbup:
 

justAndy

Jolly Nihilist
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Posts
7,722
Reaction score
172
Location
Old Town Scottsdale
whatever....

no need to make anything up. His numerous gaffes of jolly ignorance, his alignment with bible thumping bigots (on the rise with the current administration), his sweating, twitching, mumbling testimony in the Iran Contra hearing, his support for right wing death squads in Central America - are enough factual things to bash him for. Why not go there? Not "sexy" enough, I guess...
You can't make entertainment out of this stuff - it's serious.
 
Top