Reagan Movie

[peptoabysmal]

CBS' Statement:

Quote:

"This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script," CBS said in the statement. "Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address those concerns."

Quote:

"A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view," read the CBS statement. "We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers' right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved."

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by pgwenthold


If you didn't watch it, how do you know it was uninteresting?

The same way I knew that "On Golden Pond" would be uninteresting to me. I know me.

[KelvinG]

I'm very suspicious of CBS's claim that they viewed the mini-series and decided it was not fair and accurate. A network planning to air any show would surely have creative input during the post production process, and possibly even as early as the script stage. The idea that a group of CBS execs sat in a room watching the final cut and were surprised by the slant of the content seems like an excuse made up after the fact.

In reality, I'm quite sure they bowed to pressure, as opposed to making the decsion based soley on viewing the final cut.
They claim that they made some suggestions, but they were ignored. Well, how about putting one of your guys in the editing room and making the changes instead of dumping the whole project. I'm just not buying their story.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by KelvinG
I'm very suspicious of CBS's claim that they viewed the mini-series and decided it was not fair and accurate. A network planning to air any show would surely have creative input during the post production process, and possibly even as early as the script stage. The idea that a group of CBS execs sat in a room watching the final cut and were surprised by the slant of the content seems like an excuse made up after the fact.

In reality, I'm quite sure they bowed to pressure, as opposed to making the decsion based soley on viewing the final cut.
They claim that they made some suggestions, but they were ignored. Well, how about putting one of your guys in the editing room and making the changes instead of dumping the whole project. I'm just not buying their story.

I'm equally suspicious of how much Mr. Streisand's wife had to do with this movie, since Barbara is well-known to be a full-blown liberal activist. And like you, I can't prove it, either

The statement from Brolin is that his wife had nothing to do with this movie. I think the real irony is that Brolin is exactly what he was trying to portray Reagan as. Type casting?

[Cain]

*sigh*

Cain writes:

Quote:

You said CBS wanted to release the movie right "now" in an attempt to "discredit" the Bush administration.

Pepto asks:

Quote:

Where did I say that CBS wanted to do that?

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Speaking of which, it wouldn't take much more than a third grade education to figure out why this movie is coming out now. It is nothing but a transparent attempt to discredit the Bush administration by association.

Moving right along...

Quote:

After they viewed the final product and heard the complaints, CBS decided it was in their best interest not to air the program, but to sell it to a cable network. I imagine that if CBS was the one with the hidden agenda, they would have held out for a little longer before giving up. Could it be that the finished product did not match the idea that was sold to CBS?

But earlier you said CBS wanted to discredit the Bush administration. Fortunately, you have a charming disregard for basic consistency:

Quote:

About the timing; likely it was set up when it the idea was sold to the network by the producer. Why not a movie on Bill Clinton's private life? An equally popular president with even more juicy private life details. Could it be that it is right before an election year? This would probably have had an encore presentation and perhaps another run next summer.

Or maybe -- and I'm only throwing this out there as a possibility -- the country suffers from Clinton fatigue; every aspect of his private sexual life has been repeated and documented in explicit detail and talked about ad nauseam.

Whatever the case, any CBS documentary on Clinton could probably never satisfy Republican ideologues who view the man as evil incarnate. The criticism would not change: "Oh, they're presenting Clinton in a favorable light to discredit Bush."


I know, I know, but you're a political apostate, a former liberal, so your opinion is special blah blah blah blah blah blah.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cain

{deleted... not worth repeating}

Quote:

But earlier you said CBS wanted to discredit the Bush administration. Fortunately, you have a charming disregard for basic consistency:

All you've proven here is that you can't read.

Quote:

Or maybe -- and I'm only throwing this out there as a possibility -- the country suffers from Clinton fatigue; every aspect of his private sexual life has been repeated and documented in explicit detail and talked about ad nauseam.

Valid point. It completely omits the fact that we are coming up on a re-election year for a Republican president, but valid point anyway.

Quote:

Whatever the case, any CBS documentary on Clinton could probably never satisfy Republican ideologues who view the man as evil incarnate. The criticism would not change: "Oh, they're presenting Clinton in a favorable light to discredit Bush."

Really ...
Pass that doobie around a little, will you?

Quote:

I know, I know, but you're a political apostate, a former liberal, so your opinion is special blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Not worthy of a reversal of a Custer decision. (see Little Big Man)

[KelvinG]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I'm equally suspicious of how much Mr. Streisand's wife had to do with this movie, since Barbara is well-known to be a full-blown liberal activist. And like you, I can't prove it, either

Yes, like everyone else, including you, who has an opinion on this matter, I can't definitively prove anything.
I was simply basing my comments on my experiences with studios and how I felt that CBS's story just doesn't make sense. Their behaviour is inconsistent with the usual process when a studio or network is involved in any project. (except where a director has final cut, which is a unique situation)
However, I'm not asking you to take my word as anything but speculation on my part.
And to further speculate, I will agree with you that I am skeptical of the claim that Streisand had nothing to do with this mini-series. I'm sure she had her nose stuck right in the project.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by KelvinG


Yes, like everyone else, including you, who has an opinion on this matter, I can't definitively prove anything.
I was simply basing my comments on my experiences with studios and how I felt that CBS's story just doesn't make sense. Their behaviour is inconsistent with the usual process when a studio or network is involved in any project. (except where a director has final cut, which is a unique situation)
However, I'm not asking you to take my word as anything but speculation on my part.
And to further speculate, I will agree with you that I am skeptical of the claim that Streisand had nothing to do with this mini-series. I'm sure she had her nose stuck right in the project.

CBS gave their statement. You can believe it ... or not. I think they could do a mini-series on the scandal behind this mini-series.

[shecky]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


About the timing; likely it was set up when it the idea was sold to the network by the producer. Why not a movie on Bill Clinton's private life?

Primary Colors was considerd to be a thinly veiled depiction of Clinton.


I had been pretty uninterested in the Reagan movie until this mess. Now, I actually want to see it. I think CBS is now dropping the ball by nixing it. This much publicity is great for ratings, and would put all the conservative yahoos on the defensive. And CBS would no longer look like they're caving in to pressure from a bunch of nuts.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quote:

Originally posted by shecky
This much publicity is great for ratings, and would put all the conservative yahoos on the defensive. And CBS would no longer look like they're caving in to pressure from a bunch of nuts.

And I would like to know why the right (as an organized group, though there must certainly be individual exceptions) didn't get as hot and buttered over the much more egregious treatment of, say, Al Gore and John McCain during the 2000 election.

The crazed affection of so many for Ronald Reagan is certainly a mystery.

[SlippyToad]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

You don't know me very well, do you? Otherwise, you'd have seen how hard I tried not to draw any conclusions about this movie.

Whether I know you or not is irrelevant. You did draw a very significant conclusion.

Quote:

My hearing works just fine. I heard it on radio and television broadcasts. I also read about it.

I don't recall critiquing your hearing. It's your thinking that's sloppy. As I stated, neither you nor the people you heard from have seen the film. Your second and third-hand accounts of it are heavily biased and filtered. You notice that I have access to the same information that you do, but so far my only comments are regarding the furor surrounding the film, not the content of it, of which I profess complete ignorance. I will watch it when it comes out on Showtime, however.

Quote:

Believe or not, I can read at least at a 3rd grade level.

Well, it's been awhile since my pass through the 3rd grade, but a 101 level logic text will show you how to diagram an argument. Here's yours:

I have not seen the Reagan Movie, but I like Ronald Reagan.
Others, who similarly have not seen the movie, say it is biased and fictional.
Therefore, it will be used in classrooms to distort the opinions of our fragile youth.

It is impossible for you to speak from a position of knowledge on the topic of this movie's accuracy or relevance, yet you have come to a clearly-stated conclusion about it.

Quote:

Speaking of which, it wouldn't take much more than a third grade education to figure out why this movie is coming out now. It is nothing but a transparent attempt to discredit the Bush administration by association.

Opponents of Bush have his own none-too-impressive resume to work with. This movie would be a poor choice to be the cornerstone of a Vast Liberal Conspiracy to unseat Bush.

Bush has many times promised to be more Reagan than Reagan, if at all possible. In the media biz, it's known as "topical" to do things like this. If St. Reagan is really as great as his fans say, no doubt a competing documentary can be made which will show the true truth of his administration. Regardless, Reagan was and remains a public figure, and it doesn't matter if he's at death's door or not -- he is at all times from now until the end of history going to be subject to criticism. Those who cannot tolerate public criticism should stay out of the public eye.

Quote:

The real danger of this movie is that it could end up in classrooms, being peddled as a "documentary".

And again you state this conclusion. It's a short sentance, but I'm fascinated by the convoluted assumptions you must have had to make to get there.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quite a fine analysis, SlippyToad.

And welcome to the forum.

[KelvinG]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


CBS gave their statement. You can believe it ... or not. I think they could do a mini-series on the scandal behind this mini-series.

You're right. And I don't believe it.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by SlippyToad

Well, it's been awhile since my pass through the 3rd grade, but a 101 level logic text will show you how to diagram an argument. Here's yours:

I have not seen the Reagan Movie, but I like Ronald Reagan.
Others, who similarly have not seen the movie, say it is biased and fictional.
Therefore, it will be used in classrooms to distort the opinions of our fragile youth.

I spend enough time diagramming software and using logic to earn my living, thank you very much. I refuse to be completely logical about politics. Besides, politics isn't always logical, you may be blinding yourself to the truth in your quest to be admired by other skeptics.
I don't like Ronald Reagan, and never have. If it passes as a "documentary", it will likely show up in classrooms. Fortunately, it has not been passed off as a "documentary", so we will never know.

Quote:

It is impossible for you to speak from a position of knowledge on the topic of this movie's accuracy or relevance, yet you have come to a clearly-stated conclusion about it.

Brolin himself admits to borrowing his character from "Spitting Image". Maybe you're too young to remember that show, they made Reagan look quite the idiot.

Quote:

Opponents of Bush have his own none-too-impressive resume to work with. This movie would be a poor choice to be the cornerstone of a Vast Liberal Conspiracy to unseat Bush.

Swiftly winning two wars, lowering taxes and beginning economic recovery before the end of his first term. That's got to look bad for him.

Quote:

Bush has many times promised to be more Reagan than Reagan, if at all possible. In the media biz, it's known as "topical" to do things like this. If St. Reagan is really as great as his fans say, no doubt a competing documentary can be made which will show the true truth of his administration. Regardless, Reagan was and remains a public figure, and it doesn't matter if he's at death's door or not -- he is at all times from now until the end of history going to be subject to criticism. Those who cannot tolerate public criticism should stay out of the public eye.

I wouldn't mind an honest criticism of Reagan. I would rather see stories like this portrayed with the good, the bad and the ugly. As long as it is as truthful as it can be. Every clip I've seen from this movie and every story I've read on it shows it to be heavily biased, to the point of being a satire, not a documentary. Maybe you have a pointer to somone who has viewed it and has a different opinion?

Quote:

And again you state this conclusion. It's a short sentance, but I'm fascinated by the convoluted assumptions you must have had to make to get there.

I'll take my convoluted assumptions over your constipated allusions any day

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Quite a fine analysis, SlippyToad.

And welcome to the forum.

You can take your hand out of your sock puppet's butt now.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
If it passes as a "documentary", it will likely show up in classrooms. Fortunately, it has not been passed off as a "documentary", so we will never know.

Again with the but-who-will-think-of-the-children scare. (By my recollection, the third time you've brought up your fear of such a possibility in this thread.) Has Oliver Stone's Nixon been used in classrooms? PT-109? This is Spinal Tap?

Lastly, why do you presume that anyone was attempting to present the film in question as a documentary? Do you know what the word means?

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Again with the but-who-will-think-of-the-children scare. (By my recollection, the third time you've brought up your fear of such a possibility in this thread.) Has Oliver Stone's Nixon been used in classrooms? PT-109? This is Spinal Tap?

Lastly, why do you presume that anyone was attempting to present the film in question as a documentary? Do you know what the word means?

I brought the point up once and have only been defending it in subsequent replies. Admittedly, it is a weak point.
It's also weak to disguise intent with terms like "docu-drama".

Oliver Stone docu-dramas are curriculum vitae in many college courses. If it hasn't trickled to the high-school level yet, it will. Younger children would be bored stiff by these movies, so it's unlikely that it will be shown at anything under 7th or 8th grade level.

[SlippyToad]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I spend enough time diagramming software and using logic to earn my living, thank you very much.

Software logic and rhetorical logic are two different things. I also earn my living designing and implementing large systems. But I have a degree in English Lit, which means I spent my college years learning to deconstruct texts. Software logic works in the context of the rules of the computer system. Rhetorical logic works against a background of things you know, and don't know. And you don't know what this movie is like until you've seen it.

Quote:

I refuse to be completely logical about politics.

Then you will spend much of your time defending asinine statements to people like me.

Quote:

Besides, politics isn't always logical, you may be blinding yourself to the truth in your quest to be admired by other skeptics.

The only thing I'm confused about here is why you persist in forming an opinion in a vacuum.

Quote:

I don't like Ronald Reagan, and never have. If it passes as a "documentary", it will likely show up in classrooms.

You stated quite clearly in the post that started this thread that you didn't like him in the '80's and have since "seen the light." So how many more reversals of opinion am I likely to get from you?

Quote:

Fortunately, it has not been passed off as a "documentary", so we will never know.

But the script is available on Salon. You can hunt it up yourself. I deconstruct below

Quote:

Brolin himself admits to borrowing his character from "Spitting Image". Maybe you're too young to remember that show, they made Reagan look quite the idiot.

Well, Reagan made himself look quite the idiot. This is a guy who recited his personal experiences liberating Europe to public audiences, when it was well known he'd spent WWII making movies in California.

Quote:

Swiftly winning two wars, lowering taxes and beginning economic recovery before the end of his first term. That's got to look bad for him.

The film gives him credit for this. However, it also makes sure he doesn't get a free pass on many other major gaffes.

Quote:

I wouldn't mind an honest criticism of Reagan.

Since you don't know what this movie is actually like, it's hard to respond to that.

Quote:

I would rather see stories like this portrayed with the good, the bad and the ugly.

There's plenty of that in the script.

Quote:

As long as it is as truthful as it can be. Every clip I've seen from this movie and every story I've read on it shows it to be heavily biased, to the point of being a satire, not a documentary.

This is satire. The script I read is largely historically accurate. Lines that Reagan can't be proven to have spoken, especially the crack about living and dying in sin, are nonetheless consistent with his public image. The filmmakers took it right out of history. The events are accurate. Maybe history isn't what you'd like to remember.

Quote:

I'll take my convoluted assumptions over your constipated allusions any day [/b]

And I'll take a knowledgable source over someone talking out of his a-hole any day.

Having now read the script of the film in question, I can state that I definitely wish to see the film. Depending on how the director chose to interpret it, it could just as easily be about the relationship between a powerful politician and his wife going through a significant period in history. Reagan gets credit for, among other things, forcing the Soviet Union to begin nuclear disarmament. His unwavering stand on various 'character' issues is highlighted. However, the script also delves into the cultural events surrounding his rise to power, beginning with the McCarthy era as it was perceived by Hollywood, and Reagan's gradual conversion from a Democrat to a Republican. Additionally it gives him no pass whatsoever on Iran-Contra. My take on that was always that his professed ignorance was either a lie or a dangerous indicator that the chief executive of the United States was not entirely of sound mind. The script takes the latter stance. Regardless, you can't whine about bias -- the events are public record, and any movie about a President that didn't cover the most significant scandal of his Presidency would be remiss. It's worth noting that the script focuses on his ability to pull the nation's attention away from Iran-Contra in what appears to be a positive fashion.

A script isn't a movie, but it's the source, and if Reaganites are afraid of the source material they should pause to re-examine their unwavering devotion to the memory of Reagan. Yes, he made the Soviet Union "blink." But he let a lot of stuff go on under his nose that was embarassing, and he deliberately did some things that no one in their right mind should be proud of. No one is perfect, and people who want to pretend that Reagan was infallible are just asking for it.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by SlippyToad
You stated quite clearly in the post that started this thread that you didn't like him in the '80's and have since "seen the light." So how many more reversals of opinion am I likely to get from you?

Quote:

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 can see how you would become easily confused. I was thanking {insert diety} for not being a liberal any more, not for changing my mind on how I feel about Reagan.

I won't subscribe to Salon, but thanks anyway. I'll watch the movie when I get a chance to.

Quote:

Reported statements by CBS producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan that they confirmed the facts of the movie with at least two sources were challenged by established Reagan biographers Lou Cannon and Martin Anderson, who said no contact had been made with them regarding the accuracy of the portrayal of the former president.
Link

[Brown]

All right, now I've seen the movie.

It was about what I expected.

First, Brolin's take on Reagan was not too bad. On the whole, Reagan himself comes out looking pretty good, in spite of a few blunders. The Iran-Contra affair, which has almost disappeared from the public consciousness, was presented as a very serious political event in Reagan's presidency.

Reagan's family don't fare as well as Reagan. Nancy comes off as part witch and part saint, with the witch persona being dominant. Nancy's belief in astrology is prominent in the story.

Reagan's kids don't come off well, either. Despite being identifed with "family values," Reagan couldn't relate well to his own kids. Some of Reagan's staff were not favorably portrayed, either.

I spotted no outrageous historical errors. There were some things in the movie that were overdone, and some places where "artistic license" was evident, but the movie did not appear to me to be a "hatchet job" on the Reagan presidency. Many of the most unpleasant events in the movie are well-documented, and many were made known during Reagan's terms in office.

In my judgment, the movie's scope was too broad. It sought to show Reagan from the onset of his entry into politics, up to his final day in office. As a result, there were several large time leaps, and many important events were given abbreviated treatment. The overall theme of the movie, that Reagan wanted to save the country, was sometimes too heavy handed.

Tonight, I understand Showtime is running a roundtable discussion with historians talking about the movie.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


This isn't about free speech, rather it's about what can be broadcast as non-fiction.

...

pepto,

This post of yours is almost a month old, but I just caught it.

How is "what can be broadcast as non-fiction" not about free speech? Should the government set up a mechanism to determine the truth of what is purportedly non-fiction, and thereby restrict the broadcast of such things? Were you perhaps not aware that the concept of free speech includes the right to say things that aren't true?