Reagan Movie

peptoabysmal

Illuminator
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,466
Reagan Movie

I was no fan of Ronnie when he was in office. I was a liberal in those days. (Thank {insert diety} I've seen the light). I still blame Ronnie for his part in Iran-Contra and allowing Iraq to use CW on the Kurds and get away with it.

I have been hearing that this movie, starring Mr. Streisand portraying Ronald Reagan, is almost a work of fiction being peddled as a documentary.

If it is the case that this movie is a work of fiction, it would be sad if it ends up being used in classrooms as "required viewing" some day.


Edited: tags 8^}
 
I am no fan of Reagan. I do not despise the man, and he was very good in many ways. But as a whole, I do not think he was a very good president.

That said, I expect that the mini-series will probably not treat him fairly. This is not praise for Reagan, but an indictment of television. Television's "historical" mini-series tend to take considerable "license" with history, resulting in oversimplified and incorrect portrayals of historical figures. In a contest between being entertaining and being historically accurate, television invariably selects the "entertaining" option.

It is possible for a dramatic portrayal of a president to be done with pretty good accuracy. James Whitmore's "Give 'Em Hell, Harry!" stands out in this regard. Laurence Luckinbill's one-man show about Lyndon Johnson was also a good effort, and many people thought highly of Edward Herrmann's portrayals of FDR and William Devane's portrayal of JFK.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
From what I understand, it is very accurate. That is why the nut right is so upset.
I second this. I read (though I'm afraid I can't recall where, so a link is out of my reach) that the producer(s) endeavored to find two verifiable sources for each of the script's points.

I can better appreciate the appeal of Mr. Reagan from reading a few of the man's recently compiled and published notes of correspondence. Frankly, at the time, I could never quite understand the near idolatrous levels of reverence he engendered during his presidency -- a level of feeling that hardly seems to have diminished in the years since. Because of this, any treatment -- from Edmund Morris' "Dutch" to the television miniseries in question -- that is not in keeping with the right's desire to place him beyond serious scrutiny is going to be, well, seriously scrutinized.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
I second this. I read (though I'm afraid I can't recall where, so a link is out of my reach) that the producer(s) endeavored to find two verifiable sources for each of the script's points.

Keep in mind the uproar caused by these morons (right wing nuts) when Oliver Stone's "Nixon" came out. There was a scene where Stone portrayed Nixon as being drunk. The truly stupid whined about this, saying there was no evidence that he was a drunk (of course there was no evidence that he wasn't either), even though a dsclaimer at the beginning of the film clearly said that some scenes were conjecture - but I guess the nut right is also the illiterate right. But then what happened a few years later? Why, audio tapes made in the oval office of a clearly drunk Dickie Nixon came out! The truly stupid (right wingers) were strangely silent about that! Hmmmmmm....
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:


Keep in mind the uproar caused by these morons (right wing nuts) when Oliver Stone's "Nixon" came out.

What a waste, being offended by an Oliver Stone flick.
 
I have to concur in the opinion that the reverence for Reagan held by some people is ridiculous and not deserved. While he was in office, Reagan butt-smoochers were saying that his face ought to be on Mount Rushmore. Even today, some people say that he was the best president ever. Well, I remember the Reagan era really well, and it wasn't all that great.

Reagan's record is full of goofs, blunders, stupid remarks and downright falsehoods. This is part of the man that he was. He tended to repeat stories he'd heard, and seemed not to care whether the stories were factual. There were some in the media who deliberately tried to throw Reagan curve ball questions, just to see what kinds of goofy answers they'd get from him.

If you tried do a mini-series that failed to mention Reagan's propensity for sticking his foot in his mouth, then that mini-series would be unfair (despite the fact that this would be the kind of mini-series that Nancy Reagan would prefer). Similarly, if you did a mini-series that emphasized the errors and boneheaded remarks, then that would be unfair, too.

There seem to be two big complaints about the movie: one is the cast, who are unfairly presumed to act according to a political agenda rather than a legitimate portrayal of their characters; and the other is that Reagan showed a lack of compassion with AIDS victims. As I recall, Reagan DID show a lack of compassion for a lot of people, including AIDS vicitims. He may not have made the controversial "They that live in sin shall die in sin" remark, but his actions, and those of his administration, were consistent with that view.

Surgeon General Koop, for example, had to go to rather extraordinary lengths (some of them almost comical) in order to publish his AIDS information pamphlet to the American people. He also expressed his concern about facing the "They that live in sin shall die in sin" mentality of the Reagan administration. Koop basically said, "Look, I'm a doctor, and my attitude has to be 'Hate the sin, but treat the patient anyway.'" (Dr. Koop earned my respect for his courage on this issue, and because he refused to publish anti-abortion studies that were contrary to the weight of the evidence, even though he personally was strongly opposed to abortion.)

C.S. mentioned "Nixon." Well, long before "Nixon" came out, Woodward and Bernstein published "The Final Days" about the end of Nixon's term. There were a lot of stories in that book that were denied by Nixon supporters, and yet, many of them were later admitted to be true. Woodward and Bernstein rigorously checked their facts before typing anything, and used multiple sources to corroborrate stories. As a result, "The Final Days" has withstood historical scrutiny, for the most part.

It is not clear that the Reagan mini-series has been subject to such rigorous fact-checking.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
From what I understand, it is very accurate. That is why the nut right is so upset.

Oh darn, I thought you might have some actual facts about the movie to share.
 
Brown said:

Reagan's record is full of goofs, blunders, stupid remarks and downright falsehoods. This is part of the man that he was. He tended to repeat stories he'd heard, and seemed not to care whether the stories were factual. There were some in the media who deliberately tried to throw Reagan curve ball questions, just to see what kinds of goofy answers they'd get from him.

If you tried do a mini-series that failed to mention Reagan's propensity for sticking his foot in his mouth, then that mini-series would be unfair (despite the fact that this would be the kind of mini-series that Nancy Reagan would prefer). Similarly, if you did a mini-series that emphasized the errors and boneheaded remarks, then that would be unfair, too.

Totally agree. I would rather they show both the good and bad, as truthfully as possible. But then, it probably would only air on PBS LOL.
 
Reagan already has his legacy.

The Ronald Reagan building mentioned in this statement about a new Patent Office building by John McCain.

This deal will be worse than the Ronald Reagan building deal. Remember how the cost of the Ronald Reagan building skyrocketed? That building, which is three million square feet, began as a $362 million building, and ended up costing $800 million. That's a huge cost increase.

Hey, the building's cost was just like deficits during the Reagan Era.
 
Ronald Reagan couldn't recognize members of his own cabinet! He's a Goddamn F**king Moron if there ever was one. The manner in which the right idolizes the man is revolting. Reagan on the rock? Please.

Whenever confronted by a right-wing jackass who goes on endlessly about the great Reagan, I raise my eyebrows and say, "Oh, you mean the guy who murdered lots of people and now wears diapers. Yeah, I guess he single-handedly destroyed the 'Evil Empire.' And trees are responsible for 80% of our air pollution. :rolleyes:"
 
Why can't the Left organize these kind of boycotts? Or whenever a group opposes their portrayal in the popular media they get mocked: "Haha, look all the crazy black* people!! Calm down already. And quit being so sensitive."

*or gays or hispanics or Jews or Muslims or anybody not explicitly aligned with the GOP.
 
It's a shame it's being cancelled. I'd've liked to have seen who they chose to play Madge "St. Peggy of Grantham" Thatcher. Apparently her relationship with Ronald "My name is?" Reagan made Clinton's cigar exploits look like, well, some old school chauvinist abusing his aides. Although when Thatch and Ronnie got together, you could feel the earth move under your feet. Especially if you lived in Grenada, Tripoli, Nicaragua, Panama...
 
Bill Oreilly is yapping about this movie, bringing up the boycott thing. I think its lousy journalism considering NO ONE HAS SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!
 
Tmy said:
Bill Oreilly is yapping about this movie, bringing up the boycott thing. I think its lousy journalism considering NO ONE HAS SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!


Is it lousy journalism, or at attempt to drum up publicity for the film?

Hmm.
 
Hmmm, a movie about Reagan on a major television network. Some people are upset about the content? of a movie?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the mandate of major television networks to sell commercials and put various crap between the commercials to keep people watching?

Charlie (TV cynic at heart) Monoxide
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
From what I understand, it is very accurate. That is why the nut right is so upset.

I won't say it is "very accurate," but there is a kernal of truth to what you say.

The characterization that it is "pure fiction" is certainly coming from the right, who are objecting that it doesn't always show Reagan in a favorable light. But you know what? Not everything he did was so danged good.

My guess is that it is far closer to truth than the objectors would like you to believe. I'm sure there are instances where the truth is stretched, but that happens in any movie.
 
Tmy said:
Bill Oreilly is yapping about this movie, bringing up the boycott thing. I think its lousy journalism considering NO ONE HAS SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!

What? OReilly bashing a show he hasn't seen? What next, will he bash a book he hasn't read? Oh wait, he has done that, too...
 

Back
Top Bottom