Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Showtime's The Reagans as Belittling and Derogatory as Feared
MediaResearch ^ | 7:10am EST, Monday December 1, 2003 | BrentBaker

Posted on 12/01/2003 10:36:19 AM PST by fight_truth_decay

I spent three hours -- two hours and 53 minutes to be exact -- on Sunday night watching The Reagans on Showtime so I could spare you the pain: The movie, originally produced as a two- part mini-series for CBS, was every bit as awful as conservatives feared with a belittling portrayal of Ronald Reagan. The movie delivered a cartoonish Ronald Reagan, played by James Brolin, who read words fed to him by others, seemed capable only of uttering short quips about "commies" and "big government" and followed the orders of others -- mainly an all-controlling Nancy Reagan, played by Judy Davis, who came across every bit as what rhymes with witch.

Before the showing of the movie, Matt Blank, Chairman and CEO of the Showtime Networks, delivered a condescending introductory message in which he bemoaned how the movie "has been criticized by those who have yet to see it as an unbalanced denouncement of Ronald Reagan's presidency," though that was exactly what viewers were about to see. He also maintained that "nearly all" of the "facts" are true: "Nearly all of the historical facts in the movie can be substantiated and have been carefully researched."

And the bias didn't relent after the movie when the producers displayed their political agenda in a series of on-screen text messages which highlighted how Reagan helped Saddam Hussein and blamed Reagan for AIDS deaths.

On the production values side, the film's shallowness and brief scenes meant it didn't approach the quality and authenticity of NBC's The West Wing.

After nearly three hours of scenes of a befuddled Reagan barely able to comprehend what aides around him are discussing, a bunch of very weird scenes of dreams in which Ronald Reagan imagines himself as a lifeguard saving present-day administration officials, and numerous temper tantrums between Nancy and daughter Patti, interrupted by Nancy consulting her astrologer and telling Mike Deaver how ketchup really is a vegetable, it's hard to imagine how anyone not familiar with the Reagan years -- anyone under age 30 or so -- would have any idea how he won election to any office, never mind a landslide re-election to the presidency.

On the political policy front, the movie basically jumped from negative anecdote to negative anecdote, highlighting a liberal hit parade from the 1980s: Reagan saying trees cause pollution, the administration counting ketchup as a vegetable, Reagan sleeping through a Libyan attack on an Air Force jet, embarrassment over SS graves at the Bitburg cemetery visited by Reagan, and how Reagan said he "saw" the "horrible" holocaust though he was in Hollywood during the war. (He probably was amongst the first to see the video of the death camps.)

And you don't have to take my word for how bad a movie CBS commissioned: On Saturday, Showtime let some TV critics see it and a few managed to write up reviews in time for their Sunday papers.

In the Los Angeles Times, state politics columnist Patt Morrison observed: "The problem Reagan's admirers and chroniclers will find is that's about all there is here; we get Iran-Contra, but not Reagan's 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.' We get the stupefyingly ill-advised visit to a cemetery where Nazi SS troops were buried, but not the Reagans teary-eyed at the memorial for the Challenger astronauts."

For Morrison's November 30 review in full: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-reagan30no v30,1,339506.column?coll=la-news-a_section

In a dispatch posted by Yahoo on Saturday night, the AP's David Bauder summarized the overall derogatory theme: "The Reagans' faults are familiar to those who followed his presidency. What's striking is how they dominate this film compared to Reagan's successes; the Iran-Contra affair is given considerably more time than the Cold War defeat of the Soviet Union, and the economic boom of the 1980s is barely touched upon. The film opens with a befuddled Ronald and tearful Nancy Reagan dealing with the fallout of Iran-Contra, in which the government traded arms to Iran for hostages."

For Bauder's November 29 review:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=494&e=2&u=/ap/20031129/ap_en_tv/tv_reagans

The Washington Post's liberal Tom Shales found some "endearing" moments, but he suggested: "Nancy Reagan as Cruella De Vil and Ronald Reagan as the nearsighted Mister Magoo? There are those who will probably find the depictions of the former President and First Lady in The Reagans just that simplistic and cartoonish."

Shales elaborated: "The film, while not a hatchet job or unrelentingly vicious attack, definitely makes the Reagans rather freakish creatures, Nancy with her fanatical reliance on an astrologer and her tendency to sob and rant in the bathtub, Ronald haunted by nightmares of being a lifeguard, as he was in his youth, and being unable to 'save,' among others, figures in his administration who go down in disgrace."

He lambasted CBS: "There's enough nastiness and character assassination in the film -- even without the line about AIDS -- to make CBS look wise in pulling it off the network and foolish in having scheduled it in the first place. It's a matter of bad timing as well as bad manners; former President Reagan is not only still alive but seriously and terminally ill, making a drama riddled with slurs unseemly and hugely inappropriate."

For the November 30 review by Shales in full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22139-2003Nov29.html

In Sunday's Miami Herald, Glenn Garvin conveyed: "The Reagans, which airs tonight on CBS' corporate cable cousin Showtime, portrays the former President as a bumbling bob who would have been more at home in a pie fight or an eye-poking contest than as leader of the free world. In the view of The Reagans, we should probably be thankful we didn't wind up with the chimp from Bedtime for Bonzo as Secretary of State."

While Garvin maintained that "the script of The Reagans is not the one-sided character assassination that conservatives were calling it a few weeks ago during the uproar that triggered the CBS cancellation," he reported: "It's still clear that the screenwriters (Jane Marchwood, Tom Rickman and Elizabeth Egloff) are not politically sympathetic to Reagan, particularly in the hysterical scenes in which he's blamed literally for the end of the world over his AIDS policies. And the sound-bite bits that they occasionally use from his speeches have been removed from all context, making them sound like troglodyte ravings. Easy enough to laugh now at talk of Soviet world domination, but nobody was giggling during the Berlin airlift or the Cuban Missile Crisis."

For Garvin's review in full: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/columnists/glenn_garvin/7378310.htm

In contrast, New York Times reviewer Alessandra Stanley didn't see what everyone else saw. Seemingly in a parallel universe, she insisted: "There is no reason Showtime's version of The Reagans could not have been broadcast on CBS earlier this month....Anyone eagerly anticipating or dreading a hatchet job on the 40th President is bound to feel confounded. James Brolin's portrayal of Ronald Reagan is uncannily convincing and respectful."

For Stanley's take in the "National" section of the Sunday New York Times: http://nytimes.com/2003/11/30/national/30REAG.html

Before the 8pm EST/PST showing of the movie, Matt Blank, Chairman and CEO of the Showtime Networks, delivered a condescending introductory message in which he bemoaned how the movie "has been criticized by those who have yet to see it as an unbalanced denouncement of Ronald Reagan's presidency," though that was exactly what viewers were about to see; argued that the movie "is, in fact, an honest portrayal of many of the turning points in his life;" and, in an unintentionally humorous claim, maintained that "nearly all" of the "facts" are true: "Nearly all of the historical facts in the movie can be substantiated and have been carefully researched."

Blank even wrapped himself in the flag: "We're pleased to live in a country where we're allowed to debate and question both our leaders and the world we live in."

Blank's pre-movie message: "As you probably know, The Reagans has been criticized by those who have yet to see it as an unbalanced denouncement of Ronald Reagan's presidency. We believe it is, in fact, an honest portrayal of many of the turning points in his life and in his political career. His legacy did not come without serious political controversy, and this movie attempts to portray that controversy alongside his incomparable statesmanship, charisma and galvanizing political leadership. A diligent attempt was made by the filmmakers to have factual sources for every scene in this movie. For dramatic purposes, some dialogue has been embellished and some characters are composites. But nearly all of the historical facts in the movie can be substantiated and have been carefully researched. Showtime is in a unique position to present programming that sparks this kind of debate, to take risks and to question and reexamine issues so that audiences can make judgments for themselves.

"We're pleased to live in a country where we're allowed to debate and question both our leaders and the world we live in. One of the most powerful ways to do this is on film. This right does not come without responsibility and scrutiny. Any time a movie inspires spirited debate, discussion, and even a renewed interest to take a closer look at history, that's a good thing."

And the bias didn't relent after the movie when the producers displayed their political agenda in a series of five on-screen text messages which acknowledged Reagan accomplishments that were absent in the film while also highlighting how Reagan helped Saddam Hussein and blaming Reagan for AIDS deaths.

The text messages, as displayed in white text on a black background:

"A year after Reagan left office,
the Berlin Wall came down,
ushering in the eventual
dissolution of the Soviet Union."

"In 1984, during the Iran-Iraq war,
the Reagan Administration
removed Iraq from its list of
terrorist nations, and aided
Saddam Hussein's military build-up."

"Reagan's economic policies
weathered the worst recession
since the Great Depression,
followed by the longest
peacetime boom in U.S. history."

"Today in the United States,
890,000 people live with
the AIDS virus.
Over 500,000 have died from
the disease, including
the 150,000 during the Reagan
Administration."

"According to recent polls,
Ronald Reagan has
surpassed Abraham Lincoln
as one of America's most
popular presidents."

"Ronald Reagan currently
suffers from advanced
Alzheimer's disease.
Nancy devotes herself
entirely to his care."

Showtime will re-air the movie tonight at 10pm EST on Showtime Too East and 10pm PST on Showtime Too West, airings which will follow a Showtime (on main channel, not Too) panel discussion about the movie at 9pm EST on Showtime East/9pm PST on Showtime West.

Showtime's page for the movie:
http://www.sho.com/site/movies/thereagans/home.do

Showtime's page for its panel discussion:
http://www.sho.com/site/movies/thereagans/controversy.do

With a few exceptions, and with some of the dialogue slightly changed, virtually every scene outlined in the November 25 CyberAlert preview, compiled by the MRC's Rich Noyes based on a script posted by Salon.com, appeared in the final cut. For the preview, see several items in the November 25 CyberAlert: http://www.sho.com/site/movies/thereagans/controversy.do

Oh, and three last oddities I noticed:
a) At the hospital after Ronald Reagan is shot, a photographer takes some pictures of Reagan in bed with Nancy beside him. She later picks out a photo to be released, but demands that a nurse and IV stand be removed. But instead of being cropped out, the nurse and IV stand are magically lifted out with the resulting photo showing the wall and flowers which were behind the nurse. Software manipulation of a digital photo years before its time.

b) As Ronald and Nancy dance in the hallway of the White House residence on the last day of his presidency, and he forgets the steps, out the window you see, very large, the dome of the U.S. Capitol building. A geographically-challenged camera angle.

c) The name of the actor who plays President Jimmy Carter: John Andersen, one letter off from the actual independent candidate in 1980.

-- Brent Baker


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: mrc; showtime; thereagans
Streisand (November 10, 2003): "It seems impossible to believe that CBS has really cancelled the airing of The Reagans - the first time in the history of television that a program has been cancelled just before airing due to political pressure. The movie will now be aired on Showtime, which is broadcast in 14 million homes versus the 108 million homes that can tune into CBS. People should be able to see this movie, or choose not to. What is the network so intimidated by? It couldn't possibly just be the suggested "boycott." If the show had aired, everybody would have probably tuned in just to see what all the fuss was about and few advertisers would want to miss out on that. One possibility, which I have seen mentioned many times, is that CBS' parent company, Viacom, is concerned about the implications for the proposed new FCC regulations that would allow them to expand their markets. Perhaps they don't want to alienate key Republican support for these FCC changes."

Just a conclusion to those following The Reagans. I didn't watch..I had read enough of the screenplay. Those I know did not watch.

1 posted on 12/01/2003 10:36:19 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
read later
2 posted on 12/01/2003 10:39:25 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

3 posted on 12/01/2003 10:41:15 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
has been criticized by those who have yet to see it...

Oh, like the lefts merciless attack on Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion? But, that's somehow different, huh?

4 posted on 12/01/2003 10:42:28 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Just DAMN.
5 posted on 12/01/2003 10:43:03 AM PST by Capitalist Eric (To be a liberal, one must be mentally deranged, or ignorant of reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
So, would it be ok with the libs if someone made a movie showing JFK beating John John? How about if they portrayed JFK sleeping through the Cuban missile crisis--in Marilyn's bed?

Can you hear the howls of indignation, if such a film were produced?

These people are beyond the pale.
6 posted on 12/01/2003 10:43:12 AM PST by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
CBS remains the responsible party for this attack.
7 posted on 12/01/2003 10:45:00 AM PST by gitmo (Stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. -GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
The movie was pure liberal trash. Too bad the elite liberals didn't spend more time on reforming the decaying Democrat party and less time trashing and lying about Republicans. Perhaps they would a bit happier and perhaps they could slow the death of liberalism in American policy.
8 posted on 12/01/2003 10:46:21 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
"So, would it be ok with the libs if someone made a movie showing JFK beating John John? How about if they portrayed JFK sleeping through the Cuban missile crisis--in Marilyn's bed?"

Or snorting coke at Frank Sinatra's Palm Springs home, perhaps scoring some heroin from the Mob for his back pain too?

9 posted on 12/01/2003 10:48:09 AM PST by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
In an unrelated story: Producer Moore, of the first season of Star Trek Voyager fame, recently re-envisioned the 1970's Battlestar Galactica pilot in order to make it more politically correct for 2003.

Elements of the "updated" version: Female Starbuck, Traitor spy Boomer, Adama is a dysfunctional father, Hilary Clinton-esque President character, Human cylons which were created by humans and human foolishness comming home to roost (envirowacko?), and cinema verte camera shots.

The hollywood PC disease is universal and not limited to "the Reagans." It is a product of arrogance.
10 posted on 12/01/2003 10:49:44 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
There needs to be a NEW epic made about the Reagan presidency, with balanced writers. We can't let the liberals hijack the cinematic history of Reagan's life. However, I can't think of one actor that has enough personality or "gravity" to play Reagan reasonably well.
11 posted on 12/01/2003 10:50:42 AM PST by StolarStorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; No More Gore Anymore; Petronski; LurkerNoMore!; Fledermaus
Reviews FYI
12 posted on 12/01/2003 10:52:34 AM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Brent Baker: "I spent three hours -- two hours and 53 minutes to be exact -- on Sunday night watching The Reagans on Showtime so I could spare you the pain."




Since we never know when our last moments on this earth will be, I am in debt to Mr. Baker for wasting his precious time and sparing me mine to enjoy other pursuits.
13 posted on 12/01/2003 10:52:36 AM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
"Nearly all of the historical facts in the movie can be substantiated and have been carefully researched."

Not the whole truth...Herr Matt Blank. "Nearly all"? What a hedge! These people are unreasonable.

I can see what is coming next year - a movie, "The Clintons", where they will make the ex-boy-president and the first enabler look like Superman and Superwoman-er, with a few incidental human flaws for effect.

14 posted on 12/01/2003 10:53:12 AM PST by VRW Conspirator (Democrat party: The party of death and slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
forgot to add, boome is a female too.
15 posted on 12/01/2003 10:56:36 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Showtime is counting on continuing controversy. It has a follow-up panel discussion, "Controversy: The Reagans," scheduled for tonight at 9.
16 posted on 12/01/2003 11:00:09 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I did not watch either, I do not own Showtime. If I did, I'd have canceled my subscription...

I invite all to join us vs the next indecent film out of Hollywood: Fahrenheit911 by Michael Moore

http://www.PABAAH.com
17 posted on 12/01/2003 11:01:06 AM PST by jonalvy44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Boomer a spy? Outrageous!

Guess the Baltar character would remind people too much of certain traitorous left wing politicians.
18 posted on 12/01/2003 11:12:43 AM PST by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I am dissapointed that CBS didn't go ahead and show this - the backlash would have been delicious. Plus, that would have paved the the way for "The Clintons" mini-series, which I am dying to see - it will either have to be somewhat true to life and show the Clintons, warts and all, or it will be a laughable attempt at turning them both into saints.
19 posted on 12/01/2003 11:13:23 AM PST by ghost of nixon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Now the Baltar is just an innocent patsy who has been dupped by a oversexed human female cylon. They really did not understand the popularity of the original. (then again hollyweird still does not understand Reagan.)
20 posted on 12/01/2003 11:15:27 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

REVIEWS:

TV: 'The Reagans' is an offensive, unfair look at the
president - Vince Horichi
TV Columnist
Salt Lake Tribune

Beyond `Reagans' hoopla, a critical,
typical biopic By Matthew Gilbert, Boston Globe

Robert Bianco, USA TODAY
CBS did The Reagans a favor - "The Reagans is exactly the film CBS says it was promised: An impeccably produced movie propelled by a strong performance from James Brolin and an extraordinary one from Judy Davis."

Also Showtime is running a poll: Did you watch The Reagans on Showtime?
http://www.sho.com/site/movies/thereagans/controversy.do

21 posted on 12/01/2003 11:17:22 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
"Nearly all of the historical facts in the movie can be substantiated and have been carefully researched."

Translation: In history there really was a Reagan presidency, there really was a hostage crisis, there really was... So therefore our show is "historically accurate", even if it fictionalizes all of the dialog and personal events.

22 posted on 12/01/2003 11:17:42 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
You can hardly buy that kind of support. Every time they trash us a few more votes slip into the Republican column. The only ones that believe their slime are the already committed Democrats. Look at how the trash they tried to pile on Arnold backfired. I know of committed Democrats that switched their votes after the LA Times buffoonery.
23 posted on 12/01/2003 11:19:20 AM PST by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Israel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
"Nearly all of the historical facts in the movie can be substantiated and have been carefully researched."

This sounds so Clintonesque (with apologies to the owner of that term). Since when do "historical facts" need to be "substantiated"? A "fact" is a fact. And, "is" doesn't need parsing.

24 posted on 12/01/2003 11:51:17 AM PST by bruin66 (Guns don't kill people. Bullets do. Guns just make them go really fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Oh, like the lefts merciless attack on Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion? But, that's somehow different, huh?

The difference is that large numbers of people have already seen "The Passion" - and the overwheliming majority of people who have seen it, including Billy Graham and Jim Dobson, have endorsed it with vigor. "The Passion" is not an "unknown" entity!

25 posted on 12/01/2003 12:06:38 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
The difference is that large numbers of people have already seen "The Passion"

Come on....the left started screaming about The Passion BEFORE it was even completed. Besides, my (rhetorical) question wasn't aimed at you. I just threw it out there because of the hypocrisy.

26 posted on 12/01/2003 12:15:43 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The hollywood PC disease is universal and not limited to "the Reagans." It is a product of arrogance.

I believe the disease you speak of is simply the insanity associated with insatiable greed and lust for power and I do not believe it is limited to Hollywood.

Reagan, in my opinion, is as good and decent a man as God ever made and must not be viewed in the context of the events dictated by the dirty little apolitical, amoral olygarchy that has surrounded the presidential caricature, regardless of political party, for quite some time.

27 posted on 12/01/2003 12:24:26 PM PST by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Come on....the left started screaming about The Passion BEFORE it was even completed. Besides, my (rhetorical) question wasn't aimed at you. I just threw it out there because of the hypocrisy.

Aha...I agree. The criticims were based more on false assumptions, and perhaps not a little bit of guilt, before anyone had seen the movie.

28 posted on 12/01/2003 12:24:58 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jonalvy44
I did not watch either, I do not own Showtime. If I did, I'd have canceled my subscription...

I did have Showtime when this all erupted, but I canceled and spent lots of time with the supervisor explaining exactly why.

Said tht maybe he should take a look at the number of cancelations within the last month and see if he sees a coralation.

29 posted on 12/01/2003 12:35:41 PM PST by The UnVeiled Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
And this was shown the day before World AIDS day. What a co-inkydink...
30 posted on 12/01/2003 12:36:39 PM PST by mewzilla (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruin66
"Since when do "historical facts" need to be "substantiated"?"

And a little twist on that line of thought: "...nearly all the facts are true..."

They produced such a convoluted storyline that not even all the facts are true!! (whatever that means)

Liberal idiots.
31 posted on 12/01/2003 12:44:31 PM PST by JSloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Did anyone get a list of advertisers? It's been too long since my "Permanent Boycott" had any new inductees...
32 posted on 12/01/2003 12:48:16 PM PST by Eala (Sacrificing tagline fame for... TRAD ANGLICAN RESOURCE PAGE: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Argh! Did anyone get a list of advertisers? It's been too long since my "Permanent Boycott" list had any new inductees...
33 posted on 12/01/2003 12:48:44 PM PST by Eala (Sacrificing tagline fame for... TRAD ANGLICAN RESOURCE PAGE: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Robert Bianco, USA TODAY CBS did The Reagans a favor - "The Reagans is exactly the film CBS says it was promised: An impeccably produced movie propelled by a strong performance from James Brolin and an extraordinary one from Judy Davis."

Bianco must be about as low as Hillary! Scum.

34 posted on 12/01/2003 12:50:11 PM PST by thesummerwind (like painted skies, those days and nights, they went flyin' by)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I watched it and critiqued it live on this thread. Early on, you will see me taken to task by my fellow freepers because I am cutting them a lot of slack. I don't think I was -- I was simply calling it as I saw it, and it really didn't start out too bad.

But it rapidly degenerated. It quickly became very hateful, ticking off every liberal lie about the man -- and especially his wife -- in their little red book. It was, simply, the most savage hit-piece I have ever seen.

I have taken a personal interest in making sure Barbra Streisand becomes very embarrassed, and, if possible, politically destroyed. She is -- in a pair of words -- pure evil.

35 posted on 12/01/2003 12:59:25 PM PST by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I watched the first hour, was repulsed, then came back for the last half hour. Some basic thoughts: Brolin's caricature of Reagan, with always a confused, indecisive painful look on his face, constant shallow references to commies; "Handlers" pushing him into the GOP, pushing him to run for governor (with Nancy's insistence), all these people pushing and feeding a hapless, confused actor. The portrayal of his kids and the "fact" that Patty and Ron never heard of, much less met, Michael or Maureen until Patty was at least about 12, is hard to believe, but in the film they just "show up" uninvited and bringing shock and dismay to the younger kids and Nancy and disrupt the more important business of running for governor. Very disrespectful and bad portrayal, especially since it's obvious the writers didn't consult with the family or those who were close to the family.

The dressing down that John Tower gives the President about what he did in Iran-Contra and the gravity of the issue to his presidency, is extremely overdone in its drama and looks much more like the Left's wish about how the President and Mrs. Reagan reacted. Tower basically reduces the President to tears and has Nancy pathetically lashing back. I remember the time and what I truly recall was the foaming at the mouth of Lawrence Walsh at trying to pin anything he could on the President with no avail, not a desparate Reagan reduced to tears.

All in all, this movie is just a silly, liberal dream of what they wish we all thought of Reagan and what they wanted history to show. The reason this did not go on CBS is because it would have been a PR disaster for them - really a piece of trash.
36 posted on 12/01/2003 1:05:29 PM PST by untwist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
"Today in the United States, 890,000 people live with the AIDS virus. Over 500,000 have died from the disease, including the 150,000 during the Reagan Administration."

Unless Ronaldus Magnus was "patient zero" there is no way the left can hang this canard on him.

37 posted on 12/01/2003 1:34:17 PM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
It sounds even worse than I thought. Its not like this was some little politician - this movie was about a man who many consider one of the greatest president in US history. To not mention his accomplishments of defeating the Soviets or his role in reviving the economy is evidence this movie was at worst a hatchet job and at best a three hour slight.
38 posted on 12/01/2003 1:54:57 PM PST by KC_Conspirator (This space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

View results of the Showtime poll at
http://www.sho.com/site/movies/thereagans/controversy.do?showresults=1

Did you watch The Reagans on Showtime?
Yes 93%
No 7%

Did the movie change your opinion about the Reagan Presidency?
It changed my opinion favorably 10%
It changed my opinion negatively 7%
It did not change my opinion 82%


How do you think the movie will influence other people's opinions of the Reagan years?
It will positively influence people's opinions 14%
It will negatively influence people's opinions 48%
It will not influence people's opinions 39%

How would you characterize the point of view of the movie?
Conservative 10%
Liberal 47%
Balanced 43%

How warranted was the controversy over the movie "The Reagans?"
Very warranted 35%
Somewhat warranted 12%
Not very warranted 14%
Not at all warranted 36%
I don't know 2%

How much do you agree with CBS's decision not to run the movie?
Agree completely 34%
Agree somewhat 5%
Neither agree or disagree 6%
Disagree somewhat 7%
Disagree completely 48%

Did you vote for Ronald Reagan in either 1980 or 1984?
Yes 46%
No 54%
39 posted on 12/01/2003 2:25:44 PM PST by hnorris (Deserve Victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I'm sorry I'm not a Showtime subscriber. I would have loved to cancel my subscription over this. Well, too late now.
40 posted on 12/01/2003 2:31:34 PM PST by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
In an unrelated story: Producer Moore, of the first season of Star Trek Voyager fame, recently re-envisioned the 1970's Battlestar Galactica pilot in order to make it more politically correct for 2003.

Elements of the "updated" version: Female Starbuck, Traitor spy Boomer, Adama is a dysfunctional father, Hilary Clinton-esque President character, Human cylons which were created by humans and human foolishness comming home to roost (envirowacko?), and cinema verte camera shots.


ARRRRGH! Must you mention that "thing" mascarading as Battlestar Galactica? Thank God for the Galactica DVDs, where Starbuck is a cigar chomping, Cylon blasting MALE!
41 posted on 12/01/2003 2:42:03 PM PST by Galactic Overlord-In-Chief (Visit my website for my columns covering Louisiana and national politics: www.bayoubrawl.cjb.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Also, the original BG had a great speech by Adama, even while the rest of his fellow councillors were ready to make peace with the Cylons:

"Forgive me Mr. President, but they hate us with every fiber of their existence. We love freedom, we love independence, to feel to question to, resist oppression. To them, it's an alien way of existing that they will never accept."
42 posted on 12/01/2003 2:44:28 PM PST by Galactic Overlord-In-Chief (Visit my website for my columns covering Louisiana and national politics: www.bayoubrawl.cjb.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Galactic Overlord-In-Chief
ARRRRGH! Must you mention that "thing" mascarading as Battlestar Galactica? Thank God for the Galactica DVDs, where Starbuck is a cigar chomping, Cylon blasting MALE!

I saw an brief interview with the female who is the "new" Starbuck. She stated something like: "Yep, I'm the new Starbuck, -- get over it!"

43 posted on 12/01/2003 3:16:24 PM PST by Col Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Galactic Overlord-In-Chief
"Forgive me Mr. President, but they hate us with every fiber of their existence. We love freedom, we love independence, to feel to question to, resist oppression. To them, it's an alien way of existing that they will never accept."

LOL, are your sure this wasn't a briefing from the Chief-of-Staff to President Reagan about how the left-wing media and their left-wing democratic bosses felt about him?

44 posted on 12/01/2003 3:24:00 PM PST by Col Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
We did not watch it, but we don't have Showtime. But we don't know anyone who watched it. Babs, it died the death it deserved - only the media watched it.
45 posted on 12/01/2003 3:27:47 PM PST by maxwellp (Throw the U.N. in the garbage where it belongs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
A relevant article on Presidents in film written by by Dave Tianen (Milwaukee Sentinal, 29 Nov):


http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/nov03/188319.asp
46 posted on 12/01/2003 3:47:35 PM PST by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Good article.I agree that some of the TV dramas are superior.We don't get Showtime so I was interested in the live thread last night and the other reviews.Tonight there's supposed to be a panel dicussion.
47 posted on 12/01/2003 4:05:56 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Eala
I believe Pepsi ran thru the 30th. That was from my earlier research on advertisers.
48 posted on 12/02/2003 9:12:37 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hnorris
Did you vote for Ronald Reagan in either 1980 or 1984?
Yes 46%
No 54%

That would explain the results of this poll.

49 posted on 12/02/2003 9:25:05 AM PST by al_c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson