WhiteAlert
August 23rd, 2004, 08:22 PM
The Reagans
reviewed August 23, 2004
I have never been a particular fan of “docudramas” based on the lives of recent political figures. Those of us who remember President Kennedy when he was alive, for example, are moved to derisive laughter whenever we see another actor’s clumsy attempt to recreate JFK’s distinctive appearance and speech patterns. Furthermore, these movies or “miniseries” invariably contain egregious historical distortions, usually slanted unambiguously toward the leftist/jewish agenda.
The most recent attempt to portray the life of a recent former president was “The Reagans,” originally scheduled to run as a miniseries last year on CBS. Given the fact that its co-star James Brolin is now the husband of leftist jewish activist Barbra (Schnozola) Streisand, the film was understandably thought to be a tasteless and broadsided smear of a still widely-revered ex-president. There was, in fact, an unexpectedly large outcry from the right-wing segment of the jewsmedia, and enough public pressure was brought to bear on CBS to prevent its airing on the broadcast network. It was, however, shown on the Showtime, a premium cable network owned by CBS’s parent company Viacom. Viacom, as most of us should know, is controlled by kike media megamogul Sumner Redstone, aka Murray Rothstein.
So when I saw that this film or “miniseries” is now available on video, I did not have any high expectations for it, to say the least. As someone who lived through the Reagan presidency, however, I was curious to see how all of these public figures would be portrayed and if the caricatures presented were as libelous as many had claimed. Much to my surprise, I enjoyed the film and actually came away more favorably disposed toward the Reagans than I had been previously.
“The Reagans” is more the personal story of Ron and Nancy than it is a political documentary. It is actually a paean to their mutual devotion and love: apparently this fabled relationship was quite genuine, as witnessed by the tireless care Mrs. Reagan gave her husband during his last years with Alzheimer’s. The story begins in Hollywood, where Reagan first meets Nancy Davis on a movie set. Brolin is much too old here for this part of the film, as it is almost impossible to convincingly make an older actor appear younger (although of course very easy to do the opposite and age a younger actor). Reagan was only 39 in 1950, but is already deeply wrinkled here. Aside from that, Brolin looks and speaks as a reasonable facsimile of the real Ronald Reagan. While he looks somewhat like one of those Halloween masks of Reagan in his black wig and heavy makeup, he gets the voice and facial expressions mostly right.
Judy Davis is young enough that she doesn’t have an age problem, although her physical likeness to the real Nancy Davis/Reagan is tenuous. Her acting, however, overcomes this, because she is very believable in this role and ages gradually over the course of the movie’s timeline. More importantly, Nancy Reagan is portrayed much more favorably here than she was by the media during her time as first lady. She is not the materialistic, domineering shrew the press often made her out to be, although she is definitely shown as strong-willed and the power behind the Reagan presidency. I believe that this is essentially accurate, but this in no way detracts from her character. Her motivation in this film is always to do what is best for “Ronnie” and her love for him is never pictured as anything less than real, although I found it a little sickening that he often called her “Mommy.” I don’t see how even the most dyed-in-the-wool Republikunt loyalist could object to this depiction, but I suspect those protesting most loudly about this miniseries have never seen it.
As to President Reagan himself, I would say the film presents a balanced view of his presidency. Yes, there is at one point the ludicrous suggestion made that Reagan was responsible for AIDS, but other than that there is surprisingly little leftist preaching. Reagan’s motives are never questioned, and I think it is now almost universally conceded that he was a personally honest and decent man. His advisors and political kingpins, however, are made to look somewhat sinister and conspiratorial, but we always have wife “Nancy Pants” (another of his cutesy names for her: apparently she actually did wear the pants in the family) fiercely protecting him from those she believed would destroy him.
Was Reagan just a scripted actor who only played the role of President? Yes, and no, if we are to believe this film. He is shown writing many of his own speeches, as he was in life a prolific writer contrary to many popular perceptions. The strength of his convictions is never questioned, either, but there are always those “advisers” around him who are attempting to script him. It may be disturbing to some Reagan fans that he is often shown either napping or watching old movies, but there is apparently much truth in this: he was often said to fall asleep during cabinet meetings. This doesn’t make him a bad guy in my book, because most of these meetings probably weren’t worth staying awake for.
Most disturbing about this film is the implication that Reagan was beginning to show symptoms of Alzheimer’s early in his second term. There have been serious allegations recently that this was indeed the case, and as we all know, this is a progressive disease. Nancy is shown to be worried about his forgetfulness and that something isn’t “quite right” with him very early on. Again, this is arguably a fair observation, and not the extreme leftist belief that Reagan was always mentally deficient. Indeed, Reagan’s “forgetfulness” played a major part in the over-inflated Iran-Contra scandal.
Much attention is given to Ron and Nancy’s relationship with their two children, Ron Jr. and Patti, and Ron’s two children from his previous marriage to Jane Wyman, Maureen and adopted son Michael. By all accounts the Reagans as a family were dysfunctional in many ways, and relationships with all of the children were often stormy. I’m not going to give a tabloid account, but again I think the treatment of this sensitive subject is generally fair. Ron and Patti are often used as vehicles to inject liberal ideas, but it was (and still is) a fact that both were politically estranged from their father. It is also true, and attested to by the very moving eulogies both gave at the recent burial service at the Reagan Ranch, that they were nevertheless personally loyal to him in the end.
“The Reagans” probably won’t please either the former president’s rabid fans or his relentless detractors, but considering the jewish source, I believe it is an arguably fair portrayal. I have previously expressed my belief that the Reagan presidency was a “false hope” operation, long on rhetoric and short on accomplishment. This does not mean, however, that we have to personally demean the man, because he undoubtedly (as a member of that ill-named “greatest generation”) sincerely believed in everything he did. Since the onset of Reagan’s Alzheimer’s, Nancy Reagan is no longer a controversial figure and is now almost universally admired. I think the movie’s producers took that heavily into consideration. Even Nancy’s reliance on her astrologer friend is not given the derisive treatment it is usually accorded.
The film lasts for three hours on DVD, but because it was originally produced as a miniseries, it can be watched in more than one viewing session. It moves quite swiftly, as it has to cover a lot of years, but the important highlights of their life together are all there. The performances and dialogue are more convincing than in most movies of this genre, and anyone interested in politics as a spectator sport is sure to find something of interest here. Oh, yes, one more thing. There’s a scene where Reagan stands up to Elie Wiesel and the holohoax jews and goes to Bitberg even against Nancy’s pleadings. He did a few things right.
RICH BROOKS
©2004 Rich Brooks. All rights reserved.
here: http://www.whitealert.com/reagans.htm
www.whitealert.com
reviewed August 23, 2004
I have never been a particular fan of “docudramas” based on the lives of recent political figures. Those of us who remember President Kennedy when he was alive, for example, are moved to derisive laughter whenever we see another actor’s clumsy attempt to recreate JFK’s distinctive appearance and speech patterns. Furthermore, these movies or “miniseries” invariably contain egregious historical distortions, usually slanted unambiguously toward the leftist/jewish agenda.
The most recent attempt to portray the life of a recent former president was “The Reagans,” originally scheduled to run as a miniseries last year on CBS. Given the fact that its co-star James Brolin is now the husband of leftist jewish activist Barbra (Schnozola) Streisand, the film was understandably thought to be a tasteless and broadsided smear of a still widely-revered ex-president. There was, in fact, an unexpectedly large outcry from the right-wing segment of the jewsmedia, and enough public pressure was brought to bear on CBS to prevent its airing on the broadcast network. It was, however, shown on the Showtime, a premium cable network owned by CBS’s parent company Viacom. Viacom, as most of us should know, is controlled by kike media megamogul Sumner Redstone, aka Murray Rothstein.
So when I saw that this film or “miniseries” is now available on video, I did not have any high expectations for it, to say the least. As someone who lived through the Reagan presidency, however, I was curious to see how all of these public figures would be portrayed and if the caricatures presented were as libelous as many had claimed. Much to my surprise, I enjoyed the film and actually came away more favorably disposed toward the Reagans than I had been previously.
“The Reagans” is more the personal story of Ron and Nancy than it is a political documentary. It is actually a paean to their mutual devotion and love: apparently this fabled relationship was quite genuine, as witnessed by the tireless care Mrs. Reagan gave her husband during his last years with Alzheimer’s. The story begins in Hollywood, where Reagan first meets Nancy Davis on a movie set. Brolin is much too old here for this part of the film, as it is almost impossible to convincingly make an older actor appear younger (although of course very easy to do the opposite and age a younger actor). Reagan was only 39 in 1950, but is already deeply wrinkled here. Aside from that, Brolin looks and speaks as a reasonable facsimile of the real Ronald Reagan. While he looks somewhat like one of those Halloween masks of Reagan in his black wig and heavy makeup, he gets the voice and facial expressions mostly right.
Judy Davis is young enough that she doesn’t have an age problem, although her physical likeness to the real Nancy Davis/Reagan is tenuous. Her acting, however, overcomes this, because she is very believable in this role and ages gradually over the course of the movie’s timeline. More importantly, Nancy Reagan is portrayed much more favorably here than she was by the media during her time as first lady. She is not the materialistic, domineering shrew the press often made her out to be, although she is definitely shown as strong-willed and the power behind the Reagan presidency. I believe that this is essentially accurate, but this in no way detracts from her character. Her motivation in this film is always to do what is best for “Ronnie” and her love for him is never pictured as anything less than real, although I found it a little sickening that he often called her “Mommy.” I don’t see how even the most dyed-in-the-wool Republikunt loyalist could object to this depiction, but I suspect those protesting most loudly about this miniseries have never seen it.
As to President Reagan himself, I would say the film presents a balanced view of his presidency. Yes, there is at one point the ludicrous suggestion made that Reagan was responsible for AIDS, but other than that there is surprisingly little leftist preaching. Reagan’s motives are never questioned, and I think it is now almost universally conceded that he was a personally honest and decent man. His advisors and political kingpins, however, are made to look somewhat sinister and conspiratorial, but we always have wife “Nancy Pants” (another of his cutesy names for her: apparently she actually did wear the pants in the family) fiercely protecting him from those she believed would destroy him.
Was Reagan just a scripted actor who only played the role of President? Yes, and no, if we are to believe this film. He is shown writing many of his own speeches, as he was in life a prolific writer contrary to many popular perceptions. The strength of his convictions is never questioned, either, but there are always those “advisers” around him who are attempting to script him. It may be disturbing to some Reagan fans that he is often shown either napping or watching old movies, but there is apparently much truth in this: he was often said to fall asleep during cabinet meetings. This doesn’t make him a bad guy in my book, because most of these meetings probably weren’t worth staying awake for.
Most disturbing about this film is the implication that Reagan was beginning to show symptoms of Alzheimer’s early in his second term. There have been serious allegations recently that this was indeed the case, and as we all know, this is a progressive disease. Nancy is shown to be worried about his forgetfulness and that something isn’t “quite right” with him very early on. Again, this is arguably a fair observation, and not the extreme leftist belief that Reagan was always mentally deficient. Indeed, Reagan’s “forgetfulness” played a major part in the over-inflated Iran-Contra scandal.
Much attention is given to Ron and Nancy’s relationship with their two children, Ron Jr. and Patti, and Ron’s two children from his previous marriage to Jane Wyman, Maureen and adopted son Michael. By all accounts the Reagans as a family were dysfunctional in many ways, and relationships with all of the children were often stormy. I’m not going to give a tabloid account, but again I think the treatment of this sensitive subject is generally fair. Ron and Patti are often used as vehicles to inject liberal ideas, but it was (and still is) a fact that both were politically estranged from their father. It is also true, and attested to by the very moving eulogies both gave at the recent burial service at the Reagan Ranch, that they were nevertheless personally loyal to him in the end.
“The Reagans” probably won’t please either the former president’s rabid fans or his relentless detractors, but considering the jewish source, I believe it is an arguably fair portrayal. I have previously expressed my belief that the Reagan presidency was a “false hope” operation, long on rhetoric and short on accomplishment. This does not mean, however, that we have to personally demean the man, because he undoubtedly (as a member of that ill-named “greatest generation”) sincerely believed in everything he did. Since the onset of Reagan’s Alzheimer’s, Nancy Reagan is no longer a controversial figure and is now almost universally admired. I think the movie’s producers took that heavily into consideration. Even Nancy’s reliance on her astrologer friend is not given the derisive treatment it is usually accorded.
The film lasts for three hours on DVD, but because it was originally produced as a miniseries, it can be watched in more than one viewing session. It moves quite swiftly, as it has to cover a lot of years, but the important highlights of their life together are all there. The performances and dialogue are more convincing than in most movies of this genre, and anyone interested in politics as a spectator sport is sure to find something of interest here. Oh, yes, one more thing. There’s a scene where Reagan stands up to Elie Wiesel and the holohoax jews and goes to Bitberg even against Nancy’s pleadings. He did a few things right.
RICH BROOKS
©2004 Rich Brooks. All rights reserved.
here: http://www.whitealert.com/reagans.htm
www.whitealert.com