Reagan Mini-Series Stirs Controversy Before It Airs
 

Fox News:
By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

Controversy is already churning over a TV mini-series about President Ronald Reagan and his legacy -- even though no one will see it until next month.

An article in Tuesday's New York Times reported that family members and close associates of the former president -- who now suffers from Alzheimer's disease -- have already begun stewing about "The Reagans," a two-part series set to air on CBS Nov. 16 and 18.

"I fully expect this mini-series will be largely unfavorable to my dad," the Times quoted Michael Reagan, a radio talk show host, as writing in an online column.

Much of the concern centers on the fact that lead actors James Brolin and Judy Davis, who play Ronald and Nancy Reagan, and series producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan have all openly acknowledged their left-leaning political views, according to the Times.

That has fueled fear that CBS' version of the Reagans' story will be told through a liberal filter -- and thus offer a skewed portrayal of the popular former president.

"It sure makes me suspicious," Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson told Fox News. "With James Brolin as Ronald Reagan, something is definitely up."

Robinson, author of "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life," admitted that he hadn't seen the mini-series or read the script -- but he didn't get a good feeling about it from the Times article and other reports.

"It sounds to me as though this script takes this idea that the man is tremendously appealing personally, that he's gifted with words, but that there's nothing in his head and he just somehow lucks into all the accomplishments of his presidency," Robinson said on Fox. "That's a preposterous notion."

The Times, which did obtain the final version of the script for its article, reported that the mini-series does credit Reagan with ending the Cold War and portrays him as a savvy politician and a moral man.

But the film doesn't discuss the economic recovery, creation of jobs and improvement of morale that he and his supporters believe were his greatest achievements as president, according to the Times.

Additionally, some of the depictions of President and Mrs. Reagan are unflattering -- like his alleged disdain for AIDS and gays, and his hazy memory, the Times reported.

"They simply want to belittle the man," Robinson said. "It's just outrageous."

Producer Meron defended the film.

"This is not a vendetta, this is not revenge," he told the Times. "It is about telling a good story in our honest sort of way. We all believe it's a story that should be told."

Ronald Reagan's biographer, Edmund Morris -- who wrote the authorized biography "Dutch" -- said he was worried the TV movie would be slanted but added that it could serve to balance out the almost cult-like status Reagan has garnered since leaving office.

"The provenance of the movie makes me suspect it will not be fair," Morris told the Times. "The best thing one can say about a movie of this kind is it does redress or counteract the sentimentalities that are being perpetrated all of the time in his name by his fanatical followers."
_______

There's nothing like commenting about the content of the series without first viewing it.

Note: I thought this to be the proper forum for this thread, and not TV Talk, because it is basically "political" in nature and not artistic.

well the Times saw the script, but the rest of them are just assuming the worst. they should probably wait, all they are doing now is giving the series more publicity

I too am suspicious. That is not a final judgement, merely a reasonable reservation.

I don't have much hope for this project....

My formula:

Brolin + Babs Striesand = no way this will show Reagan in any fair or at least balanced kind of light.

I know Babs isn't connected tot he project, but Brolin has to go home and face this woman every night.

Oooooh here we go again, blaming...implying... Reagan helped to spread AIDS. Utter Bullshit.

i have a disdain for AIDS. I'd be worried if someone didn't.

fear of a liberal filter? Would it be better through a conservative filter? There's no way to make an unbiased miniseries without painting a negative picture cuz the Reagan years were shitty.

Damn it! They should portray Reagan as a God, and hide all of his flaws!!! That would be fair and balanced!

HAH!

you see why liberal fiters suck? ;)

Making him a God would be no better than making him a DEMON.

However, balancing his story so he's just, god forbid.....human... would be good.

Just from reading the story, it sounds like that's exactly what they've done. Nothing in it indicates that they're only focusing on the bad.

NOT promoting AIDS education.
Opposing funding for AIDS research in the early years of the disease.
Not even mentioning the word AIDS in public until 1987.

Gee, I can't imagine how anyone could think that Reagan helped to spread AIDS...... -rolleyes-

uh. i dont see how he helped SPREAD AIDS. I can see that some might argue he didn't do anything to stop it, but that doesn't mean he spread it.

I am glad to see one thing in the series - it's acknowledgement that Reagan is the person who is primarily responsible for ending the cold war. I think liberals have failed to give him the credit (or some would argue the blame) for being the individual who was responsible for doing so.

Other than that, and the fact that he did bring about an era of general "good feeling" among Americans (most) after the morose they felt with Jimmy Carter, I don't have much good to say about the administration of Ronald Reagan.

lame lame lame! Take responsibilty for you bad choices. How the F*** can "mentioning a word" stop AIDS???????

Did he force men into bathhouses? Did he tell them NOT to use rubbers? AIDS wasn't the 1st STD you know. Did he invent promiscuity?

So, the NY Times says it's balanced? Consider the source....

Were the movies that came out of Hollywood about Nixon balanced?

Were the moviews that came out of Hollywood about Kennedy balanced?

Of course not!

Why would anyone expect that a movie (mini-series) that came out Hollywood about Reagan to be balanced?

To be fair, there were also heterosexual sex clubs like Plato's Retreat that were the straight equivalent to bath houses.

Personally, I did not hear about AIDS until 1986.....9 years after the first case was diagnosed. Perhaps most of the population did not either. Lucky for me, I never "slept around" and escaped this horrible disease.

I do agree that one must take responsibility for his or her actions....especially nowadays when there is so much information on the disease.

Peace

LS

I don't... That's why I said I have no high hopes about this project.

Although the one sentence did seem to imply gay bathhouses, notice I DID NOT mention gay or straight in my comment.

That's why I mentioned the heterosexual "bath house" type clubs. I realize you did not specifically mention gay or straight.

robo....grab your towel......let's go take a nice steambath. ;) :)

Ah, bad choices..... Like the people who contracted the disease thru a blood transfusion?

I wish I had the luxury of possessing your attitude. The problem is, I was around in the 80's and I know what was going on in this country at the time. The Reagan administration, cared nothing about this disease as long as it was only killing '****'.

So take your vulgar style of arguing, (jeeze, don't mods hand out suspensions anymore?), and have a nice day.

Life's too short to deal with ignorant people.............

Don't worry, I brought my Rappin' Ronnie Reagan tape. It always makes the trip go faster.

Well, well, well, w-w-well, well, well, w-w-well, well, well, w-w-well...

You know something? He *did* say "well" a lot.

Ah, 'straight' men in 'bathouses', 'NOT using rubbers'. It would seem that backpedaling is another of your talents.

It's permissable to talk about other aspects of the Reagan years other than AIDS and homosexuality. :)