As Keavin wrote here a few days ago in an article about the movie, all the producers seem to do with this film was to capitalize on the stereotypes they already had of Reagan, which as it turns out is a bit of McFly meets Homer. It�s not surprising in the least that left minded critics find nothing wrong with Brolin�s portrayal of Reagan. But the real victim here is Nancy Reagan who is portrayed as �Mommy Dearest� sans the coat hanger. 

The producers of the film claim that it wasn�t a political attack film but it�s hard to see it as anything else. They glossed over the major achievements of the Reagan presidency, failed to consult anyone from his inner circle and painted a rather unflattering picture of the Reagan family and those who worked for them. They made Reagan out to be a puppet of handlers and the writer�s version of history were in a lot of places so far removed from reality that it�s hard to fathom how they got away with it. 

Some of the glaring errors come early in the film where they are showing Reagan�s move into politics. They have Reagan saying things like he knows nothing about politics, he is just an actor.  The truth of the matter is at that point Reagan knew quite a bit about politics and had already developed a lot of his political philosophy. Let�s not forget his was the head of the Screen Actors Guild and an outspoken anti-communist. But that aside, while he was working for General Electric they would have him go around the country to give speeches and those speeches soon turned political and was where he formed his political self, which incidentally was before the Goldwater campaign aired the famous speech by Reagan that lead to his run for California governor and eventually the White House. 

That�s just one example of where they got it entirely wrong and missed information that is easily gathered from numerous books published on Reagan. They also barely touched upon the economic boom of the 80�s, the longest peace time expansion in history to that point. When Reagan took office the country was in the midst of an economic crisis with double digit inflation and interest rates hovering at 20%. Jimmy Carter�s answer was to tell Americans to get used to the fact that America�s best days were in the past. But that is the crux of why Reagan was so popular and beloved by his supporters, when he took office he projected an aura of confidence and optimism, helped restore America�s faith in itself. Agree or disagree with his policies all you want but that optimism was at the core of what Reagan was all about and his dreams of the �shining city on the hill� and �America�s best days still lay ahead�. And where was the Ronald Reagan that stood before the Brandenburg Gate and exclaimed �Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!� That Ronald Reagan was wholly missing from Brolin�s portrayal, instead we saw an oafish simpleton easily lead around by others; again a stereotype of the man held by those on the left, which when you think about it is simpleminded itself.  

But the real crime here is not that the film was slanted, that was to be expected considering who was involved. No, the real crime was the fact that this was simply a bad film that is typical of the made for TV genre or soup operas. That it was purported to be a factual look at The Reagans is a fallacy to anyone who has studied the man beyond the picture painted by his political opponents. 

The real interesting drama actually played out more in the press and the debate over the film. Far more enlightening was the panel discussion special Showtime ran on the controversy surrounding the film, "Controversy: The Reagans." 

You can say that the special was slanted in the other direction when you look at who was asked to participate. Perhaps Showtime wanted people who were actually familiar with Reagan the man, as well as the politician, to debate the merits of the film, so they invited a few Reagan insiders and one of his most knowledgeable biographers to debate a stanch anti-Reaganite and a co-producer of the film.  

On the pro-Reagan side, the panel had Reagan biographer and former domestic policy adviser Martin Anderson, journalist Lou Cannon who has penned several books on Reagan and is acknowledged as an expert on the subject, former Reagan White House public liaison Linda Chavez, and journalist Marvin Kalb who is currently a senior fellow at Harvard's Shorenstein Center for the Press, Politics and Public Policy. 

Defending the film was a co-producer of the film Carl Sferazza Anthony, whose book "First Ladies" was used as source material for the script and former RIAA president Hillary Rosen. 

Rosen was a strange choice and it�s astonishing that more people who were actually involved in the film were not participating. With the odds so stacked in favor of the pro-Reagan side you can guess what the outcome of the discussion was. 

Anderson seemed the most disturbed about the film, calling it a �hate� movie. Cannon and Kalb offered up examples of how the film makers really missed the mark on both the portrayal and the facts. Chavez dismissed the film as "the Hollywood left's fantasy of who Ronald Reagan was." 

Co-producer Anthony was quick to sell the film down the river calling it a �drama� and admitting things were made up. He kept qualifying that he had nothing to do with the writing of the script and very little input. The only time he appeared to show any backbone was when the subject turned to AIDS and how the Reagan administration was slow to act on the epidemic. Cannon and Anderson explained why Reagan was reluctant to bring up the subject in public and how his message would have been one of abstinence.  Rosen only seemed engaged when this topic was brought up and Chavez, Cannon and Anderson brought up examples of Reagan taking on the issue earlier than Rosen stated. 

The pro-Reagan side admitted the administration was slow to react and Cannon said that Reagan failed to use the bully pulpit to education Americans about the epidemic. Chavez counters that the people �in the bathhouses� that the message most needed to reach wouldn�t have paid attention to Reagan. 

In the end the general consensus was the film was not representative of the real Reagan and that�s what his supporters are most enraged about, not about differences of opinion over issues but what they saw as character assignation and a distorted view of the Reagans, twisted with a clear agenda. Unless you know little about Reagan or agree with that agenda and viewpoint it is hard to see the film as the objective look at the Reagans that is was purported to be. It would be like having a bio-film about Bill Clinton written by Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh, starring Don Knotts as a sex-starved Jed Clampett like character with scenes focusing on naughty behavior in the Oval Office instead of the whole picture, countering his failings with his accomplishments. Just imagine the scene where Clinton exclaims to his secretary, �I don�t care if the government is shut down, I�m in a meeting with my intern� or Clinton talking to Hillary the night before Monica Lewinsky testified and saying �I have to come up with a way to get the press to not focus on her testimony tomorrow� and Hillary suggest, �why don�t you fire some missiles at someone?� 

Was the film a surprise? Not at all and the sad fact is the producers apparent aim to defame the Reagans with the glaring stereotypes might actually backfire in the long run because the terrible execution of bringing those stereotypes to life actually shows how outlandish and cartoonish most of them are. You can disagree with someone over their politics but why should you have to resort to character assignation and the rewriting of history to do so? 

Ronald Reagan was many things but he was not George McFly or Homer Simpson.  

antiGUY
 

.