Entry: Gotta watch Reagan movie discussion Tuesday, December 02, 2003



This is one of the best discussions I've ever seen:

Panel discussing the film The Reagans, shown on showtime. The panel discussion is broadcast on C-span.

Broadcast
Reagan Miniseries
Showtime Networks
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 179336 - 12/01/2003 - 0:58 - NS

C-span broadcast http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=171923815

Carl Anthony, the co-producer of the movie was on the panel, at one point in the discussion, says the co-producer, he did

not support the portrayal of Reagan in the movie! being shown by the scene in the clip! Can you believe this. I am totally astonished, a co-producer of this film, rejecting his own movie, in part. Well now, which parts are we the audience supposed to accept and support.

Marvin Kalb, what a moron. He said very little, however, when he did speak, to me, he sounded so biased, so in a fog about the controversy surrounding the CONTENT of the film. He wonders why people are so upset that this particular portrayal of Reagan is being shown.

Chavez got it right on the bullseye - she rippingly said - because it isn't true!

I agree. My position is most of history is not the true portrayal of history. Ever wonder why most of the Pearl Harbor records were sealed for some fifty years. We as an aware citizenry have to hold all of them accountable, historians, documentary producers, etc.

Oh my goodness the co-producer says this movie was not MEANT TO BE TRUE!

He says somebody thinks Reagan was just wonderful and somebody else thinks he was a devil because of his position on AIDS.

Well, of course, this is America, we are going to have differing opinions, and we are going to have opinions based on partisanship. The important factor is that as much truth and facts as possible be known about our government so we can make informed opinions, not partisan ones.

So for both viewpoints, are they based on historical truth? Thankfully, the moderator is allowing for a discussion of the clip from the movie that shows a discussion between Mr. and Mrs.

Mrs. Reagan is attending a group session of AIDS sufferers and after the one guy says everybody is fearful of him, even his physician, she is asked to talk to her husband about AIDS. The next scene we see Mr. and Mrs. together in the bedroom, naturally, for dramatic effect, President Reagan is reclining in bed, if I'm not mistaken, he has a cigar in his mouth, but maybe not.

Nancy Reagan: IF YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT IT NOBODY WILL AND NOBODY WILL DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT... AND ALL OF THESE CHILDREN ARE GONNA DIE... AND THE BLAME WILL BE ON OUR HEADS.

MOVIE: HE SAYS NOTHING.

Yep, there is dead silence. I think he is still smoking that cigar. Now come on, for weeks all we were hearing was how Reagan did say something. But listen now, in October '86 says historian, Cannon Reagan did say something about it. He says for the historical record it is important to be accurate, something like that.

CDC knew in 1982 says Rosen what caused AIDS and Reagan didn't address it.

Well, this is incredibly interesting. The movie makers took out the most egregious statement.

Cannon says the movie gets very close to his own criticism of Reagan on the issue of AIDS, he had the power to get people involved in the issue of AIDS, he could have used the bully pulpit... he didn't...

Cannon still doesn't think this is a fair proposal. Some wanted him to speak out, others didn't want anything mentioned about AIDS.

Chavez. If he had spoken out he would have talked about abstinance, a moral stance ... many would not have liked what he had to say.

Here goes Rosen again, CDC said this was a crisis, but money diverted.

Other panelist, they could have portrayed that in the movie, but they didn't they made him seem homophobic.

Oh yeah Carl Anthony says they watered it down. He says Reagan was not homophobic...

Rosen, says something about his policies have the same impact... why do all of these people who are attacking this movie ...care whether the portrayal of Reagan is as a homophobic... his policies had the impact worse than the words themselves.

Moderator: we are... concerned about level of accuracy...

Martin Kalb: I don't know what he said. He was so biased I believe I just blotted him out.

There were no historians that were consultants, says host.

Kalb, main and principle characters not contacted.

Carl Anthony: asked why others than himself were not consulted. Anthony: He quotes accurately doesn't use unnamed sources... he says all of those books... were used by the several screenwriters... Was that sufficient, asks host, Anthony says not if you are doing a documentary, but if you are doing a drama, it's ok.

Rosen, oh it's about the relationship of the Reagans.

Well people, that isn't what comes off the screen. Why don't we just make up stuff about John F. (freakin) Kennedy. He had a communicable sexual disease himself, DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT.

Now ok, the best people to go to for the facts are who were there and hey, many of the people advising Reagan are not dead yet.

Hey, Chavez looks hot in that suit. I am going to try to find that exact outfit when I go shopping at Gabes or Gabriel Brothers. Too bad she is ok with national identification cards. Yep, she said that during another interview on C-Span a few weeks ago. Search for her appearance.

I have got to say this character portraying Reagan, Gil, whatever, married to Barbara, forget his name, is speaking so slowly, on purpose, to portray Reagan as weakening, weak, weaker, weakest.

Rosen again, look at it as entertainment, about the Reagans, not just Ronald Reagan, it is about their relationship.

Well from my perspective, if Mrs. Reagan had so much in the way of political savvy and talent why didn't she run for Congress back then, she had the name recognition; she probably would have been president one day. Better than creepy Hillary. In fact, I suggest Nancy Reagan put in her name after Bush is reelected.

Rosen again, it is entertainment, and playing out when country divisive.

Anthony, yuk. Well he is just defending his project which in part he has rejected. In his mind, none of it has to be true.

Chavez: the film was an attempt to denegrate the legacy of Reagan.

Cannon, this was entertainment, it could have been better, had they reflected some of the facts, it would have done better.

Watch for a rerun of the movie this Thursday on showtime www.sho.com


Well, I don't get that channel.


   0 comments

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments