"The Right Angle"

Heidi Parent

CBS: It's Not All Here Anymore

Thoughts on the Reagan movie fallout

by Heidi Parent
11/16/03

The vast right wing conspiracy strikes again. In an act of censorship, conservative groups marched, whined, and gnashed their teeth until CBS backed down and decided not to air the movie "The Reagans." At least that's the story we're hearing from liberals.

Following CBS's decision to drop the movie, the usual cries of censorship came from the Hollywood crowd. In a posting on her web site, Liberal diva Barbra Streisand declared, "This is censorship, pure and simple." Wrong-o, Ms. Streisand. When will you liberals learn? Protesting or boycotting by viewers, readers, or listeners is not censorship; it's just good old-fashioned freedom of speech.

But this fact aside, the media were also quick to join the "vast right-wing conspiracy strikes again" chorus. On "World News Tonight" Peter Jennings proclaimed that CBS cancelled the movie because "it may not have been as faithful to the Reagan story as some conservatives wanted it to be." How about just faithful to history, Peter? Had a movie been made that portrayed Adolf Hitler as a great, caring leader who didn't order the mass murder of millions of Jews, would you have said the movie was pulled because it was not "as faithful to the Hitler story as some Jewish groups wanted it to be"?

In spite of the cries of censorship by outraged liberals, CBS's reversal wasn't so much about caving in to pressure as it was about ordering one product and getting another. They ordered a movie about the love affair between Ronald and Nancy Reagan. And based on all accounts, what they got in return was a movie - made without input from any friend, aide, or family member of the Reagans, I might add - that portrays the 40th President as one part uncaring homophobe and one part demented evangelist. And no part real.

In an attempt to repaint Reagan's legacy, the script has Ronald Reagan doing and saying things that those closest to him insist he would never do or say. For example, many liberal groups believe Reagan ignored the plight of AIDS victims. Therefore, in the script the writers have Reagan deliver the fire and brimstone line, "Those who live in sin shall die in sin." A line filmmakers admit is fictitious.

Now admittedly all docudramas take liberty with actual events and characters. To save time, for example, they may decide to combine two actual events or two minor characters into one. However, this is all done while remaining true to the main characters and the integrity of the story line. This doesn't seem to be the case with "The Reagans." If the filmmakers admit the AIDS quote is fictitious, what point does it serve other than to perpetuate their view of Reagan as a heartless homophobe?

But as much as the filmmakers want to twist reality, if we take a closer look, the facts tell a different story. According to a study by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation of the federal government's response to the AIDS epidemic, AIDS funding increased from just a few thousand dollars in 1981 to $8 million in 1982. Moreover, funding continued to nearly double each remaining year of Reagan's Presidency. Reagan is also the one who appointed the first Presidential Commission on AIDS. And during his time in office Congress passed, and Reagan signed into law, the AIDS Federal Policy Act of 1987, which was the first legislation that prohibited discrimination against individuals who were infected by HIV or AIDS. With facts like these, no wonder they needed fiction.

And I have actually heard some try to defend the movie on the grounds that it is "just fiction." Well, if that's the case, change the names of the characters and film it and air it as fiction. But to use a real person to portray a point of view contrary to the truth is wrong.

A final thought. In an effort to get CBS to reconsider, some argued that given Reagan's current condition airing a movie like this one is nothing short of tasteless. Barbra Streisand appears to agree with this premise. "In 1983, no one stopped NBC from airing Kennedy, a biopic that portrayed President Kennedy and other members of his family and administration as deeply flawed, even though the movie could have potentially been hurtful to Jackie Kennedy, who was still alive to see it, as well as to her children." Now, let's be clear. Babs isn't making her argument in Reagan's defense. No, she is arguing that since trashy movies have been made about JFK, and he obviously was also in no position to defend himself, one about Reagan ought to be allowed, too. (Allow me a moment here to respond to Babs. If the Kennedy movie was inaccurate, the fact that it wasn't stopped, or at least corrected, is no one's fault but yours and your party's. Furthermore, just because you missed your opportunity to defend your icon, don't criticize conservatives for successfully defending one of theirs.)

But back to the argument that the movie shouldn't air because it's a cheap shot at Reagan. I don't agree. The movie shouldn't air period because rewriting history at any time is wrong. Filmmakers of an historical account should be faithful to history regardless of the current state of the characters involved. And that is why, while I am glad that CBS decided not to air the movie on their network, I don't agree with their decision to still air the movie on their sister station, Showtime. If the movie is wrong for CBS, why is it right for Showtime? An inaccurate portrayal is an inaccurate portrayal no matter where it's aired. With their decision, CBS is trying to have it both ways. Which begs the question - is Les Moonves planning on running for office?