Movie about Ronald Reagan stirring controversy, boycott...

[wonderfly]

First there was discussion of that movie "The Passion" directed by Mel Gibson. Now we have this: there's talk of boycotting CBS for a Made for TV movie about the Reagans...


Is CBS in Big Trouble?
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly



"Next month, CBS is set to run a miniseries on Ronald and Nancy Reagan, as you may know. But reports say the movie contains propaganda and defamation. And now some Americans are calling for a boycott.

CBS President Les Moonves is quoted as saying there are things about the movie he likes and things he doesn't like. So we assume CBS is going to recut the film. Therefore, we're not jumping to any conclusions until the final version is ready.

That's the fair thing to do. Remember, some condemned the upcoming Mel Gibson movie about the death of Jesus without seeing it. We said that wasn't fair and we're holding to that.

But should the Reagan movie turn out to be unfair, well, CBS is going to be in a terrible position. Millions of Americans will be angry if the Reagans are portrayed as mean-spirited. And they will take their anger out on the network and the sponsors of the movie. There's no question about that.

CBS executives have to know this. And that's why I believe they'll modify the film. But you can legitimately question their judgment in the first place. They allowed two far left actors to portray Ronald and Nancy Reagan. They allowed a screenwriter to put in a scene where President Reagan says people with AIDS deserve it, although there's no evidence Mr. Reagan ever said that. And they are releasing this controversial film when President Reagan is dying of Alzheimer's. What kind of judgment is that?

Talking Points rarely endorses boycotts. The current boycott on French products is an exception because that country is actively working against the USA. But we know the boycotts are very, very serious. They hurt people -- sometimes innocent people. And they should never be entered into lightly.

So we are holding off on judging the Reagan movie until the final cut is available to be seen. We hope the movie is fair and balanced. But if it isn't, I wouldn't want to be in the boardroom at CBS or working the switchboard.

And that's The Memo."

[RogueMartian]

A large corporation is going to do a truthful movie about the Reagans and how evil they are?

WHEN DOES IT COME OUT???!!! I WANNA SEE THIS

[EinBebop]

Originally Posted by RogueMartian

A large corporation is going to do a truthful movie about the Reagans and how evil they are?

Truthful? BWAHAHAHAhaha... even the writers have admitted they made some of that stuff up.

[Lucky Bob]

A large corporation is going to do a truthful movie about the Reagans and how evil they are?

WHEN DOES IT COME OUT???!!! I WANNA SEE THIS

-Lucky "Shouldn't this go in Entertainment?" Bob

[Karkull]

Hee hee...I want to see this too.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally Posted by RogueMartian

A large corporation is going to do a truthful movie about the Reagans and how evil they are?

WHEN DOES IT COME OUT???!!! I WANNA SEE THIS

It will contain the same amount of truth as a former (impeached) President's grand jury testimony about certain immoral relations with an intern.

Hopefully this movie is cut - literally, into tiny little pieces that will never see the light of day. If the numerous quotes from the movie script are allowed to remain it will not only be a complete misrepresentation of the Reagans but would seek to damage the credibility of one of our finest Presidents.

-Joe!

[Avery]

I don't think of the Reagans as evil, so much as utterly imbecilic.

Personally, I think the movie sounds really interesting. Whether it's truthful or not.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally Posted by Joe Wagner

It will contain the same amount of truth as a former (impeached) President's grand jury testimony about certain immoral relations with an intern.


-Joe!

If there's any sense of justice at CBS, they'll make a movie about that with Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter as: "The Clintons".

-Lucky "But...what would Sean's wife think?" Bob

[zmanjz]

CBS should be careful.

It seems to me that If they make accusations of this type that are untrue about a still "living" person. it could be considered Slander.

If this was a Movie about a Fictionialized version of Ronald Regan like "Donald Regal" then there would be less of a problem when creating scenes that we have no evidence ever existed.

BUT as this is a biographical movie expressly telling the story of a certain person, with the knowledge that they have no evidence of certain statements, As a lawyer, I would be worried about the California Slander/Libel Statutes. (I don't have the time to look up the California laws myself today)

Of course, even if It was slander, it is unlikely that Suit could be brought due to the Plaintiff's inability to assert his rights. (and his wife probably wouldn't want to put him through that in his condition)



(Side note: My position on Ronald Regan's Presidency is Neutral.)

[Jade_GL]

Originally Posted by Lucky Bob

If there's any sense of justice at CBS, they'll make a movie about that with Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter as: "The Clintons".

-Lucky "But...what would Sean's wife think?" Bob

That would almost be funny, if they were really actors and had any talent besides mean spirited punditry.

But I have a question, who were these *far left* actors? Are they considered far left because they're actors (a nasty correlation if that's all they've got) or are they really very far left, as shown by some sort of political action.

Even then, how does one know if their political ideas had any effect on how the acted. They are actors, they are supposed to act in a way that makes sense, no matter if they are Charlton Heston or Martin Sheen.

That's my point.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally Posted by Jade_GL

That would almost be funny, if they were really actors and had any talent besides mean spirited punditry.

But I have a question, who were these *far left* actors? Are they considered far left because they're actors (a nasty correlation if that's all they've got) or are they really very far left, as shown by some sort of political action.

Even then, how does one know if their political ideas had any effect on how the acted. They are actors, they are supposed to act in a way that makes sense, no matter if they are Charlton Heston or Martin Sheen.

That's my point.

Barbara Streisand's hubby is playing Ronnie, for one.

-Lucky "'Nuff said" Bob

(Side note. If someone who leans opposite politically or philosophically than the character they play, you can bet that they aren't going to portray them in a favorable light. If Hannity DID play Bill Clinton, you can bet he isn't going to have him save the world from Terminators.)

[Andy Mancini]

Originally Posted by Jade_GL

But I have a question, who were these *far left* actors? Are they considered far left because they're actors (a nasty correlation if that's all they've got) or are they really very far left, as shown by some sort of political action.

Well you asked for it...

- Several famous Hollywood stars, from Steven Speilberg to Harrison Ford, are on record of saying that Fidel Castro is a great leader and that Cuba has the right idea.

- "I think that Communism is the right way to go in America." - Chevy Chase

- Have we forgotten the "Sean Penn goes to Iraq" debacle already?

- Two words: Michael Moore.


If still you don't believe me, do some research on the political beliefs of these stars:

Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Billy Crystal, Brad Pitt, Michael Douglas, Julia Roberts, Robin Williams, Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Whoopi Goldberg, Jennifer Aniston, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Robert DeNiro, Craig Kilborn, Norman Mahler, Al Franken, The Beastie Boys (all three of them), Raine Maida (of Our Lady Peace), Zak de la Rocha, Johnny Reznik (of The Goo Goo Dolls), Dave Matthews, Eddie Vedder, Bruce Springsteen, Barbara Streisand, Rosie O' Donnell, George Clooney... and so on, and so on, and so on.

[Jade_GL]

Originally Posted by Andy Mancini

Well you asked for it...

- Several famous Hollywood stars, from Steven Speilberg to Harrison Ford, are on record of saying that Fidel Castro is a great leader and that Cuba has the right idea.

- "I think that Communism is the right way to go in America." - Chevy Chase

- Have we forgotten the "Sean Penn goes to Iraq" debacle already?

- Two words: Michael Moore.


If still you don't believe me, do some research on the political beliefs of these stars:

Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Billy Crystal, Brad Pitt, Michael Douglas, Julia Roberts, Robin Williams, Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Whoopi Goldberg, Jennifer Aniston, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Robert DeNiro, Craig Kilborn, Norman Mahler, Al Franken, The Beastie Boys (all three of them), Raine Maida (of Our Lady Peace), Zak de la Rocha, Johnny Reznik (of The Goo Goo Dolls), Dave Matthews, Eddie Vedder, Bruce Springsteen, Barbara Streisand, Rosie O' Donnell, George Clooney... and so on, and so on, and so on.

OK, obviously you didn't understand my point, so let's go over this again.

I only meant the actors in this very situation. No duh that there's far left actors, a lot actually. To say that there isn't is, well, numb, and I am certainly not numb.

My point was are these two actors, in this one situation, as far left as was claimed by O'Reilly, and I thank Lucky Bob for answering who was playing Reagan. That's what I wanted to know. At least someone understood what I was asking.

Again, why would I mention Martin Sheen as an opposite of Charlton Heston if I was somehow under the impression that far left actors don't exist?

So please, don't pull out this laundry list of things when I wasn't even talking about anyone else but the two actors in this very situation. I thought that was pretty clear but I guess not.

[Joe Wagner]

Nancy Reagan has already started pulling some strings in Hollywood to try and get the movie pulled - considering it shows her as an abusive mother while showing Ronald Reagan as considering himself to the be the anti-Christ and as being without compassion for those that are troubled with AIDS. I do think that if this movie is allowed to go forward there could be serious defamation reprocutions for CBS and the movies' directors and writers.

As a public official Nancy and Ronald would have to prove actual malice on the part of the films staff. To sue for libel they would have to identify five elements:

1) Publication - is any communication to at least one person that another person (other than the person claiming harm) has seen. Since the script has been distributed to actors, CBS management staff and to various news organizations (where portions have been reproduced) the element of publication has already been met.

2) Identification - Clearly stated in the script the film is intended to focus upon the life of Nancy and Ronald Reagan - therefore this condition is met.

3) Defamation - Two parts - Falsity and Harm

3A) Falsity - the script writer has already stated that the quotation about AIDS that is made by Ronald Reagan is 100% false and has no evidence as ever being stated. Testimony to this fact by Nancy Reagan would make the defense show evidence of the quote occuring - which of course they have already stated does not exist. Other quotes throughout the movie ("I'm the anti-Christ", etc) also have no evidence of ever occuring. Therefore falsity has already been established within the published script.

3B) Harm - if the script is allowed to be seen and then turned into a movie (as is currently in development) the film will cause irreversable harm to the character of both Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Not only would it damage their credibility as distinguished members of our society, it has the potential to sway reasonable people into believing the Reagan's acted in a manner that was harmful to people with AIDS and could cause emotional distress to both Nancy and Ronald Reagan. Based upon these potentials for harm - the precondition has already been met.

4) Fault - here is where the Reagan team would have to prove actual malice (publication of false information with knowledge that it was false OR with reckless disregard of whether the information was false or not). Given the testimony of the script writer the publication of quotations that were not based on fact yet attributed to Ronald and or Nancy Reagan would meet the requirement of actual malice as the script writer decided to publish the information with knowledge that the quote never occurred.

Personally I think that the Reagan's would have a fairly easy to win case - based upon the lack of support from the films makers and because of the writers own admittance that they knew that the quotes never occurred. Notice, this only deals with a potential Libel case - a Slander case could easily be won as well by the Reagans.

-Joe!

[Jade_GL]

CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - CBS may be courting a political firestorm with its TV mini-series "The Reagans," a dramatized portrait of the former president that has drawn complaints from conservatives a month before it airs.

The New York Times, which said it obtained a copy of the final script, reported on Tuesday that the four-hour, two part film depicts both Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy, in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of what supporters regard as his key achievements.

Adding insult to injury -- as far as Republicans are concerned -- the Gipper himself is played by James Brolin, husband of Democratic activist Barbra Streisand, while Nancy Reagan is portrayed by Judy Davis. Both are self-described liberals.

A spokeswoman for the Reagans, Joanne Drake, told Reuters the former first couple had no comment on the movie. But the ex-president's eldest son, Michael Reagan, said he was braced for the worst.

"I fully expect this mini-series will be largely unfavorable to my dad," the conservative radio talk show host said a column recently posted on the Web. "Hollywood has been hijacked by the liberal left."

Likewise, Mike Wintemute, spokesman for the California Republican Party, said he had not seen the script but gathered that it "gives short shrift to Mr. Reagan's accomplishments."

"People who were not around in that era, or who haven't taken the time to study it themselves, will be left with the impression that this is a bumbling, fumbling, dimwitted man who lucked into all of his accomplishments. And that certainly is not the case," Wintemute said.

According to the Times, the movie dwells on Reagan's shortcomings, such as his moments of forgetfulness, painting him as contemptuous of gays and AIDS victims and as a collaborator in Hollywood's anti-communist witch hunts during his acting days.

Nancy Reagan, meanwhile, is cast as a control freak with considerable sway over White House policies, even setting her husband's schedule according to the advice of astrologers.

CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and well-documented, based in part on Reagan's authorized biography, the former first lady's own memoir, and books written by his supporters.

"The miniseries is a compelling and historical account of Mr. and Mrs. Reagan's remarkable relationship set against the backdrop of the former president's political career," the Viacom-owned network said in a statement. "The film has been meticulously researched and offers a respectful and balanced portrayal of the Reagans."

According to the Times, the movie's depiction of the Reagans is not totally unfavorable. Besides giving Reagan much credit for ending the Cold War, the film shows him as a morally upright, politically gifted man of his convictions.

Still, supporters of the ailing former president have expressed suspicions that the movie is a hatchet job that reflects Hollywood's traditional left-leaning agenda.

Former Reagan White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater was quoted by the Times as asking rhetorically: "Does it show he had the longest and strongest recovery in post-war history? That the economy, stimulated by the tax cuts, was creating something like 200,000 jobs a month, for years?"

Among the lines sure to generate cries of foul from Reagan supporters is a bit of dialogue in which Nancy Reagan urges her husband to help victims of AIDS and he responds, "They that live in sin shall die in sin."

Caspar Weinberger, Reagan's defense secretary, said such a statement simply does not ring true. "That does not sound like the President Reagan I know," he told Reuters in a telephone interview. "I can't imagine him saying anything like that. He was not given to pronouncements of that kind or that pomposity."

He added: "I suspect that kind of thing is the basis for the concern that's being expressed by Prescient Reagan's friends as to the sponsorship and participation of the particular people who are in this alleged drama."

As for casting, Michael Reagan said it didn't bother him that Streisand's husband was cast as his father. "I'm glad that Brolin has found a job. It gets him out of the house and gives him something to do," he wrote. "Once again, Ronald Reagan has found work for someone in Hollywood."

http://news.findlaw.com/entertainmen...ereagandc.html

Just thought we could use a real news story to augment the discussion, not just an O'Reilly memo. I am looking around for more information. What would be great is a script or a piece that has lines from the script. Then we could look at it and see whether it's favorable or not. Having people tell me it is or isn't doesn't really work for me. I would like to either read the real stuff or see the movie with my own eyes.

So, I reserve judgment until I get to see the facts, not just people complaining. And maybe it will be cut to remove the parts which are mentioned in this piece. Still, I want to get my hands on a copy of the script or see the movie in it's original form to see what really is going on with this thing.

[EinBebop]

Also worth mentioning is the scene where Reagan starts to break down, fearing he is the Antichrist.

[Zach Logan]

Originally Posted by RogueMartian

A large corporation is going to do a truthful movie about the Reagans and how evil they are?

WHEN DOES IT COME OUT???!!! I WANNA SEE THIS

Yes, it expect it to be good, and uncover many of the major flaws and misconseptions of that administration.

[sl4]

Originally Posted by Zach Nathanson

Yes, it expect it to be good, and uncover many of the major flaws and misconseptions of that administration.

Reagan was the best president of the 20th century. I really doubt there will be as many "major flaws and misconceptions" as there will be blatant falsehoods.

<_< Clinton Wuvver.

[Chris Wood]

Originally Posted by wonderfly

[B]Is CBS in Big Trouble?
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly

Talking Points rarely endorses boycotts. The current boycott on French products is an exception because that country is actively working against the USA.

Put a sock in it O'Reilly. Clearly you're perfectly willing to support a boycott when it serves your purposes. "Boycott on French products"??? Don't make me laugh. I think I'll go pick up another bottle of Beaujolais.
Keep your xenophobia to yourself.

Anyway, an article from O'Reilly is hardly news. More like inflammatory gossip.

[Zach Logan]

Originally Posted by sl4

Reagan was the best president of the 20th century. I really doubt there will be as many "major flaws and misconceptions" as there will be blatant falsehoods.

<_< Clinton Wuvver.

Just because a president brought fiscal prosparity doesn't mean he was a good man. The american people look at presidents only through what they do with the economy, but you should look at how they helped this nation as a whole, how they improved security, education, health, and so on. Even FDR had major flaws and horrors in his administration, even though he helped the US economy, making every president after him help to IMPROVE the economy (sans GW Bush Jr. [Source: CNN])