[ETERNAL WARMING]

Title: The War Over the Gipper (Conservatives erupt. CBS cowers. The director walks. The untold story behind the meltdown of ‘The Reagans’ mini-series)
Source: MSNBC
URL Source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/987895.asp? 0cv=KA01
Published: Nov 2, 2003
Author: Sean Smith and Marc Peyser
Post Date: 2003-11-02 01:20:51 by out damned spot
2 Comments



James Brolin and Judy Davis, who play Ron and Nancy in "The Reagans," have been silent about the film



The War Over the Gipper Conservatives erupt. CBS cowers. The director walks. The untold story behind the meltdown of ‘The Reagans’ mini-series

By Sean Smith and Marc Peyser NEWSWEEK


Nov. 10 issue — President Reagan is lounging in his pajamas trying to watch TV when Nancy starts that old argument again. “Al Haig’s got to go,” she tells Ron. Nancy never liked Haig, and now she’s needling her husband again. “You know what he did when you were in the hospital?” she asks. “I know he thought he was going to take control, but that’s not so bad,” Ron says amiably, between bites of an Oreo. Finally, she swoops in front of the president, placing her blood-red nightgown between him and the television, and gets him where it hurts most. “Get rid of Al, Ronnie, or you’re never going to end the cold war!” Bingo. “All right!” he says. “Now get off my goddamn back, will you?”

YOU THINK that fight sounds ugly? It’s nothing compared to the brawl over CBS’s “The Reagans.” This mini-series (scheduled for Nov. 16), is full of scenes from a marriage like the one above, some of them loving, a few of them nasty and many of them certain to tick people off. Two weeks after a leaked script ignited protests, “The Reagans” has become radioactive—and nobody’s even seen it yet. A Web site called boycottcbs.com recorded more than 45,000 hits in less than a week. Such commentators as Bill O’Reilly have made “The Reagans” the plat du jour on their menus, and the Republican National Committee now demands that CBS let historians vet the show. But the ugliest battle is inside CBS itself. Stars Judy Davis and James Brolin decline to do any press. Director Robert Allan Ackerman has opted out of the editing, and CBS executives are now cutting it themselves. As one person close to the film says, “It’s being edited with a machete.” Sources tell NEWSWEEK that the network has even considered selling the $9 million film to Showtime.

---

What’s even more amazing is that none of this happened sooner. “The Reagans” was always meant to be a warts-and-all portrait of an American icon, with ample attention to the president’s hands-off approach to governing, his wife’s behind-the-scenes power plays and their estrangement from their children. Still, CBS thought the movie was, so to speak, fair and balanced. It credits Reagan with defeating the Soviet Union, and its central theme is the First Couple’s love affair. The script was vetted by two teams of lawyers, and producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan, who would not be interviewed by NEWSWEEK, have insisted that every fact (though not every line of dialogue) is supported by at least two sources. Before a New York Times story last month detailed conservatives’ complaints, network executives reportedly loved the movie. “They all thought it was brilliant,” says someone who worked on the film.

But the day the Times’s story broke—”The Reagans” crew calls it “Black Tuesday”—the movie instantly became trouble. CBS chairman Leslie Moonves, who approved both the script and a juicy eight-minute trailer, ordered the lawyers to look at the movie again, and asked for assurances that the facts were all in order. When he was told everything was fine, Moonves started editing anyway. “There are things we think go too far,” he told CNBC’s Tina Brown last week. (Moonves also declined to be interviewed by NEWSWEEK.) At that point, Ackerman removed himself from the editing in protest and the actors stopped talking. “Nobody seems to know what’s going on,” Ackerman told NEWSWEEK. “Whatever is going on is going on very secretly.”




As of late last week, the film had been through at least three edits. The most incendiary line—where Nancy asks the president to do more for AIDS victims and he replies, “They that live in sin shall die in sin”—has been cut. So has footage of a young Ron Reagan Jr. doing ballet. (Go figure.) Most of the other cuts come from Nancy’s scenes. For all the concern about how the president is portrayed, Davis’s take on Nancy looks like Lady Macbeth in a couture dress. “The film version is so milquetoast compared to what her daughter wrote,” says Carl Anthony, a producer of the film who once wrote speeches for Nancy. “It’s odd to me when people get all worked up, because it’s called a dramatization. They forget what that means.”

Will the changes satisfy skeptics? Don’t bet on it. “I had some Republican call me yesterday,” says Jeff Wald, Brolin’s manager. “He said, ‘You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. He has Alzheimer’s and can’t defend himself.’ Could Jackie Kennedy defend herself when they did the movie on her?” Michael Paranzino, who launched boycottcbs.com, says nothing short of a complete remake would get him to cancel his campaign. “I think they should pull it from November,” he says, “bring in consultants who aren’t hostile to Reagan and try to come up with a truly balanced picture.” Of course if CBS does dump the movie on Showtime—both owned by Viacom—much of the heat would dissipate into the cable ether. But some who worked on the film worry about the long-term implications of “The Reagans” controversy. “This is censorship,” says one source. “A pressure group has had a major network rip this movie to shreds.” But we can look forward to one fun outcome: the director’s-cut DVD.

[GeronL]

Lets make a movie about the Clintons. Lets show them planning and laughing while talking about ripping off the FDIC. Lets show them personally running drugs through Arkansas and offing Vincent Foster and ordering hits on people like Ron Brwn.

Think CBS would show it? Its a DRAMATIZATION! we could claim.

[des]

The daughter was on drugs.

[Reagan is King]

“It’s odd to me when people get all worked up, because it’s called a dramatization.”

More like fiction and slander.

[Slings and Arrows]

“This is censorship,” says one source.

No, nitwit, it is not censorship. You are free to air this excrescence morning, noon, and night if you so desire, just as we are free to make sure that you never receive another dime from us if you do so. No much on freedom, are you, "source?"

[Tall_Texan]

The real question is what would CBS do to fill in four hours of prime time sweep weeks programming if they had to dump "The Reagans" at the last minute.

Maybe they could re-air the French film about 9-11. Or maybe have Leslie Stahl hosting a documentary portraying in detail how long it takes for CBS makeup artists to make Mike Wallace appear lifelike. Perhaps use snippets of "The Reagans" as a special episode of "Cold Case: CSI". Maybe CBS News can air a Special Report: "We Think Jesus Was Gay" to counterprogram ABC's Special Report "We Think Jesus Married Mary Magdalene".

They could absorb the $9 million loss (after all, they already lose their shirts covering the National Football League), but losing the ad revenue from four hours of bad programming would be even worse.

Viacom not only owns Showtime but they also own MTV. Expect this turkey to be show up on that channel if Showtime passes.

[mewzilla]

I notice the MSNBC story never mentions the fact that the screenwriter made stuff up. Interesting omission.

[BlessedBeGod]

“This is censorship,” says one source. “A pressure group has had a major network rip this movie to shreds.”

So that's the definition of censorship: protesting against slander. Okay.

[Beck_isright]

“This is censorship,” says one source. “A pressure group has had a major network rip this movie to shreds.”

Now let me get this straight. When an individual erects a crucifix on his private property, and liberal left wing socialist pressure groups like the ACLU or People for the American Way win court cases to force the removal of said crucifix on private property that's not censorship. But when tens of thousands of individuals use their right to free speech to boycott a left wing propaganda piece, that is censorship. Nice double standard you commies. Himmler would be proud.

[OESY]

NEWSWEEK: “I had some Republican call me yesterday,” says Jeff Wald, Brolin’s manager. “He said, ‘You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. He has Alzheimer’s and can’t defend himself.’ Could Jackie Kennedy defend herself when they did the movie on her?

I believe that "some Republican" was Merv Griffin, who was justifiably outraged at CBS's portrayal since he knew the Reagans personally.

I also find it hard to believe that there was "some Democrat" who would have complained that a network had done a hatchet job on Jackie. It would never have happened.

[ladylib]

"Get rid of Al, Ronnie, or you’re never going to end the cold war!” Bingo. “All right!” he says. “Now get off my goddamn back, will you?”

From what I've heard about President Reagan, he never talked this way.

Poor James Brolin, a 5th-rate actor with no job prospects in sight, married to a harpy who is probably now not in the best of moods.

[RikaStrom]

. “This is censorship,” says one source. “A pressure group has had a major network rip this movie to shreds.”

Horse pucky. It's only censorship if the government makes you edit a piece. When the hew and cry of the public forces you to edit a piece, it's called holding your feet to the fire to produce a piece that the public will purchase.

[Morgan's Raider]

“This is censorship,” says one source. “A pressure group has had a major network rip this movie to shreds.”

No, idiot. This is the market at work. Censorship denotes government-imposed restrictions, and the govenment hasn't had a hand in this subject.

[PoisedWoman]

“This is censorship,” says one source. “A pressure group has had a major network rip this movie to shreds.”

And so goes the lubricious liberal mindset.

The Clinton/Streisand/CBS axis of evil isn't a pressure group? Ccorrecting lies is censorship?

[Sicon]

"“This is censorship,” says one source. “A pressure group has had a major network rip this movie to shreds.”

No, this is free speech and free markets. You are free to write trash and air it, but we are all free to boycott those who support your programming if we don't like your content. You want to sell to people, you have to appeal to them. Tailoring your programming to appeal to the broadest possible audience (customer base) is not censorship, it's smart business (assuming you want to STAY in business).

[ladyinred]

It is not censorship if decent people just want them to tell the true story, not film a bunch of lies to make Reagan look as bad as possible because people close to the movie are liberal democrats! If you want it to be a so called biography, then be more accurate. If not call it a Barbra hit piece.

[Petronski]

...every fact (though not every line of dialogue) is supported by at least two sources.

That's a very bizarre distinction....one that ultimately did them in. And now there is no doubt where to go to See BS.

[TaxRelief]

Sorry if this makes anyone sick (Barf Alert), but I got this from barbra's fan site.

---

TRUTH ALERT: October 30, 2003

What's all this fuss about Barbra Streisand's involvement in the upcoming CBS biopic about Ronald and Nancy Reagan? The Republican spin machine would like you to believe that Ms. Streisand, a well-known liberal activist, was intimately connected to the making of this film. The Drudge Report even said that she spent weeks on the set!

The truth? Ms. Streisand was on the set of The Reagans for a total of only 4 hours of one day. Any one of hundreds of people involved in its making could have told Mr. Drudge this truth, if he had only bothered to ask.

Furthermore, Ms. Streisand has never even read the script! She has also never seen the film, which stars her husband James Brolin. Mr. Brolin, as an actor in the movie, himself was not responsible for what is depicted in it - that was left up to the screenwriter, producers and director involved in the movie's production. Saying that Mr. Brolin's marriage to Ms. Streisand would have affected his performance is as ludicrous as the complaints about the way President and Nancy Reagan are depicted in the film.

What is going on instead is that the Republicans, who deify President Reagan, cannot stand that some of the more unpleasant truths about his character and presidency might be depicted in the movie, along with his positive actions. In fact, the film, we're told, presents a balanced portrait of a complicated man who said, when confronted with the AIDS crisis, "Maybe the lord brought down this plague because illicit sex is against the ten commandments." This has been changed in the film to, "Those who live in sin shall die by sin," but clearly the sentiment behind that statement is the same. No less a source than the World Health Organization recently said that Reagan was slow in responding to AIDS as a public health crisis, and could have even stopped the epidemic if he had taken it more seriously. Public records and multiple sources show that everything in the film, including his controversial statement about AIDS, is based on irrefutable facts.

Reagan is glorified by conservatives because what other Republican leader of recent history are they going to point towards? Richard Nixon? George H.W. Bush? Newt Gingrich? Are these men worthy of exalt? Conservatives love to boast of the 16 million jobs Reagan's economic policies generated. What they are more reluctant to mention, however, is that by cutting taxes and raising military spending, Reagan also created record budget deficits, increased inequality and tripled the national debt. Judged on their own terms, Reagan proponents would have to admit that Bill Clinton, who generated 23 million new jobs in the same amount of time in office and also turned a major deficit into the largest surplus ever, was a more successful president.

Speaking of Clinton, can you imagine what a biopic of Clinton would include? Of course, Clinton fans understand and accept the truth about the former president. They know that although he was a great president in many ways, overseeing economic prosperity and making great strides in creating a more peaceful world, he was also flawed. They don't try to prevent depictions of the truth from getting out there. Similarly, it is accepted by Democrats that portrayals of the Kennedy Family often include scandals. We must all understand that every human being embodies the good and the bad. There is no one out there who is perfect, not even our most prominent leaders ... and we must be honest in the way we portray them.

But this is what the Right Wing does when they are faced with a truth that is not 100% positive for their side - they spread vicious lies and attacks and scream and yell until they get their way. Instead of boycotting and trying to have the movie changed, why don't they all just wait to see the film when it airs like the rest of us.

Hopefully, the public will tune in to CBS on November 16th, and 18th to see the truth behind all this nonsense, and to watch what is sure to be a very interesting and well-made movie.

---

(Hey! Drudge got a mention!)

---

Ms. Streisand has never even read the script! She has also never seen the film...
Gee! Even Barbra is trying to disassociate herself from the film. LOL!

[aruanan]

Carl Anthony, a producer of the film who once wrote speeches for Nancy. “It’s odd to me when people get all worked up, because it’s called a dramatization. They forget what that means.”

Poor dopey Carl. A dramatization of a story isn't synonymous with fictionalization.

[Colonel_Flagg]

“This is censorship,” says one source. “A pressure group has had a major network rip this movie to shreds.”

No, it's not - but this line is the typical liberal mantra. Conservatives are exercising their own right to free speech by threatening boycotts. No one is telling CBS they can't air what they please. We're simply saying we don't like what they plan. They are perfectly free to run whatever version they wish, but now know there are consequences.