Trashing the Reagans, targeting Bush

Houston Chronicle ^ | 12/5/03 | Robert D. Novak

[bdeaner]

Trashing the Reagans, targeting Bush

By ROBERT D. NOVAK

To watch the entire commercial-free, three-hour version of The Reagans on the Showtime cable television network this week was an ordeal. The cartoon character presented as Ronald Reagan does not resemble the real president. But this assault on a beloved conservative icon does relate to the 2004 presidential campaign now under way.

The events here actually are fictionalized less than is the case with many other made-for-TV movies. The problem is the portrayal of Reagan by actor James Brolin, a liberal Democratic activist as is his wife, Barbra Streisand. Even when he is depicted giving a serious speech in the exact words actually delivered, the character comes over as goofy and confused. To build an entire movie on this distortion reflects the contempt for Reagan by liberal Hollywood, an attitude now transferred to George W. Bush.

In the debut week of The Reagans, show business celebrities Wednesday conducted an anti-Bush rally in Los Angeles. This state of mind in the entertainment industry, a major source of funds and energy for Democrats, feeds into the party's overall mood of emotional contempt for President Bush that mirrors the movie's attitude toward President Reagan. In each case, ad hominem attacks against political opponents supplant debate on the issues.

Only this emotional mindset can explain how The Reagans was initially approved by CBS for prime time presentation. It was shunted off to Showtime, a pay-for-play sister network of CBS with a vastly smaller audience, only because of an e-mail campaign by thousands of conservatives who had not seen the movie but heard it trashed the former president.

Favorable newspaper reviews this week were written by critics who measured only the film's production values and were insensitive to the personal assault on a political leader revered in this country. Brolin's caricature of Reagan, which hideously distorts the man I covered for 22 years, "eerily captured" the former president in the opinion of the Detroit Free Press's Mike Duffy.

Boston Globe reviewer Matthew Gilbert suggested all such docudramas treat their subjects harshly in the interest of dramatic intensity, but that is simply not the case. Harry Truman is treated favorably in Truman, a 1995 HBO film (that, incidentally, is much more interesting than The Reagans). John F. Kennedy is heroic in Thirteen Days, a 2000 film about the Cuban missile crisis. Unlike Truman and Kennedy, however, Reagan is detested in Hollywood.

The Reagans does not approach Oliver Stone's JFK and Nixon as pure fiction spinning outrageous conspiracy theories. But neither is it close to historical accuracy. Nancy Reagan is mistakenly shown pushing her husband into Republican politics and a race for governor. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon was stunned by all the factual mistakes.

The movie tries to give the impression Reagan did not even know his own national security adviser, Robert C. (Bud) McFarlane, in 1986 -- a harbinger of the Alzheimer's disease that afflicted the president after he left office. Even without this calumny, Reagan is shown drifting from one mishap to another as an addled president advised by rogues.

Longtime Reagan aide Mike Deaver, who fares slightly better than other Reagan associates in this movie, has no doubt about the production's intentions. "They have to destroy the legacy of Ronald Reagan," he told me. Deaver was not consulted in producing this film. Nor was anybody else who worked for or knew Reagan. The principal source was an obscure book called First Ladies written by an obscure writer named Carl Sferrazza Anthony, who became the movie's co-producer.

A better source would have been Reagan: A Life in Letters, a remarkable book published this year containing 834 pages of mostly hand-written letters by Ronald Wilson Reagan. It reveals a literate and intelligent man who bears no resemblance to the fool portrayed in The Reagans.

The book recently fell into the hands of one of the leading operatives in Democrat Howard Dean's campaign for president. "I had always had a low opinion of Reagan's intelligence," he told me, "until this book changed my mind." He would be advised to wonder whether his contempt for George W. Bush is as ill-considered as it formerly was against Reagan.

Novak is a nationally syndicated columnist based in Washington.

[bdeaner]

I would love to see a genuine portrayal of Reagan set to film -- Reagan: A Life in Letters would be a fantastic basis for a script. But who is going to write, produce and direct it when all of Hollywood is a cesspool of Leftist whackos? Anyone, anyone?

[ladyinred]

The movie tries to give the impression Reagan did not even know his own national security adviser, Robert C. (Bud) McFarlane, in 1986 -- a harbinger of the Alzheimer's disease that afflicted the president after he left office. Even without this calumny, Reagan is shown drifting from one mishap to another as an addled president advised by rogues.

What is ironic about this, is that anyone reading books written by former Clinton insiders would see that He is the President who didn't really make the decisions. George Steffawhatshisface unknowingly I am sure, reveals that in his book.

[Burkeman1]

I think Novak should recieve some sort of civilian "Purple Heart" award for even having the guts to sit through such a film from beginning to end. I cancelled "Showtime" after their hit piece on Clarence Thomas some years back.

[Old Sarge]

NO conservative, Republican, or American citizen with any love of country will ever be portrayed favorably by Hollywood. Those days are gone forever. Get used to it.

[cake_crumb]

SeeBS has invented a whole new film genre: the mockumentally. Great editorial.

[bdeaner]

Yes, but there is a film industry outside of Hollywood -- the independent film industry. It could be done. What it takes is $$$, motivation and persistence.

[Burkeman1]

Those days are gone forever. Get used to it.

Don't be so pessimistic. "Gods and Generals" was a rather conservative movie IMHO. I just saw "The Last Samuri" and even though it knocked America it's basic underlying message was conservative if not reactionary (though overall the film is a rental- not a must see). But for the most part Hollywood is a wasteland. Clancey's excellant novel- "The Sum of all Fears"- about Islamic terrorists detonating a low yield nuke in America was transformed by Hollyweird types into the bad guys being "Neo Nazis" with German accents. How pathetic!

[Burkeman1]

Yes, but there is a film industry outside of Hollywood -- the independent film industry. It could be done. What it takes is $$$, motivation and persistence.

Yes! I have dreamed of that. Conservatives need to be much more engaged on the cultural front. How many heroic and conservative stories have yet to be told on the Silver screen? Thousands!

[LoudRepublicangirl]

I wonder how Babs Streisand would feel if someone produced a derogatory movie about her son who is suffering from AIDS. How uncompassionate that would be...

[bdeaner]

I have dreamed of that. Conservatives need to be much more engaged on the cultural front.

I completely agree. Conservatives have the numbers and resources to make it happen; it's only a matter of getting it done.

[Burkeman1]

Have you ever seen the films "Metropolitan", "Barcelona", and "The last days of Disco"? All "indy" films by the same director and writer and all with very underlying conservative messages that fly over the head of most liberals (as most liberals are stupid.)

[Cicero]

Clancey's excellant novel- "The Sum of all Fears"- about Islamic terrorists detonating a low yield nuke in America was transformed by Hollyweird types into the bad guys being "Neo Nazis" with German accents. How pathetic!

This is an old Hollywood tradition. In the same way, all the James Bond movies changed the original villains from Ian Fleming's KGB and USSR to SMERSH, whatever the hell that is. They just couldn't STAND the idea of portraying those nice folks in the KGB as villains.

[Cicero]

Some of my young friends are in those movies. Or at least some of my friends' children or my children's friends. I agree, they are excellent movies.

[Burkeman1]

SMERSH was actually a real group. It was the Russian abbreviation of "Death to Spies". It was set up during WWII and though De jure under Red Army Control was a De Facto creature of Beria and the KGB. These were the bastards who machine gunned their own troops if they turned back on human wave assaults against German postions that could never be taken by just infantry. SMERSH were the "blocking" units in that they killed all Russians who retreated after futile attacks. They also were the ones who tortured all German POWS before executing them out right.

It doesn't surprise me that Hollywood would make this change and blame it all on "SMERSH" as if they actually existed outside of the KGB or operated as an independant force that their "leader" didn't know about. What a joke- Stalin and Beria and the KGB had complete control over SMERSH.

[Scannall]

The Reagans provides a great example of the next movie to be made. How about if Ann Coulter writes 'The Clintons'. Laura Ingraham can play Hilary, and Rush can play Bill. Think that'd be any less biased or agenda driven?

Dan

[bdeaner]

No, I hadn't have seen those films, although I've heard of a couple of them. I will have to rent them!

Any other recommendations?

[bdeaner]

How about if Ann Coulter writes 'The Clintons'. Laura Ingraham can play Hilary, and Rush can play Bill. Think that'd be any less biased or agenda driven?

LOL. Oh man, I would pay good money to see that.

[Scannall]

Now who would play Monica?

Dan

[somemoreequalthanothers]

But that's just it, their thoughts and ideas never apply to THEM.

[Burkeman1]

Conservative films? It is a rather short list. "Cheaper by the Dozen" - the first one from the 30's- not the upcoming remake with Steve Martin. "Angels with Dirty Faces"- also another 30's movie with James Cagney as a Irish hood in Hell's Kitchen. Very Christian message (and if you don't cry at the end you are not human!). I would also say that "Henry the V" - the Kennenth Branaugh version is extremely well done and conservative if you let it soak in enough. "Das Boot" or "The Boat"- about a German Sub in WWII has very subversive conservative messages. I would also recommend "Burnt by the Sun"- a Russian film about a high ranking military commander who finds himself the victim of a random terror purge.

Conservatism is not easy to capture on film as it is a way of life and disposition that does not easily lend itself to cheap propaganda as does the Left.

There are more- but that is what I came up with now.