Entertainment as News

I'll assume that anyone who wanted to watch The Reagans did so. It was never front and center on my radar screen, and I don't have Showtime anyway, but I've read a little about the "controversy" and decided to catch the C-SPAN discussion (still looking for a link on their website--update: found it).

Some of the headlines capture my own opinion, that it was much ado about nothing, and the few clips shown seemed to confirm this. James Brolin's portrayal was ok--indeed, better than I thought, capturing some of the mannerisms of the man without becoming a caricature. Judy Davis made Nancy look better than her public image suggests, if you ask me.

To be fair, here is an opinion from the right side of the aisle. Vince says he didn't vote for Reagan. His bio is unavailable, but his photo suggests the non-vote might be an age thing...

Lou Cannon, Linda Chavez, and Martin Anderson alternately played waterboy/waterperson for the Administration, while Carl Anthony and Hilary Rosen did their best to defend what seems to be, ultimately, a pretty tedious show (three hours--side note--something that takes three hours of my time should either include food and drink, or pillow talk). Marvin Kalb and Frank Sesno rounded out the panel--why they were chosen, I have no idea. Maybe they were the cheapest to hire...

My favorite part of the "discussion" involved just what Reagan did or didn't say about the AIDS crisis, and when he said it. Initially, a scene in the movie had Brolin/Reagan suggesting Diving vengence was responsible for the illness, but this apparently was akin to sticking a thumbtack into the collective backside of the right wing--as so ably demonstrated by Ms. Chavez, who spent the entire discussion acting as if the bug up her ass wasn't figurative.

The movie, incidentally, was edited prior to its airing--Brolin/Reagan now says nothing to Davis/Reagan as the latter makes a solid case for why he SHOULD say or do something. Which is apparently not good enough for the likes of Ms. Linda, who had the temerity to suggest that a cabinet briefing in 1985 (which apparently was never acted upon, and certainly not publicized at the time) is indicative of R. Reagan's pro-active agenda on the crisis--nevermind that the CDC was urging action to be taken as early as 1982.

But, as I say often, this is a digression. The point to be made is that the movie is just that--a movie. Kalb and Sesno notwithstanding--both 'journalists' suggested their own work was moot, i.e., the public might view the movie as history, instead of drama--the fact is that historical figures are often made into dramatic characters. Mr. Anthony, who otherwise was unmemorable, made just this point--do we holler at William Shakespeare because of inaccuracies in his historical plays? Of course not. And televised drama, even drama featuring figures in recent history, should be viewed as drama. Chavez, Cannon, and Anderson wanted a documentary--and not just any documentary, but a documentary that serves to further their aims of eventually adding the Ronald to Mt. Rushmore, or the ten dollar bill--indeed, to something in each of the fifty States...and they're throwing a collective hissy fit because the figure whom they worship might, in actuality, be a human, and, horrors, a flawed human at that.

You know, I don't object to hero worship, even if I tend to avoid it these days--"heroes" of mine whom I've met often turned out to be quite human, and any worshipful tone of conversation tended to cheapen the meeting anyway--but if that rocks someone's boat, good. But it's a fine line between such adulation and blind zeal to sanctify for all. Often, you get the dangerous tendency to believe your own propaganda--which should be avoided at all costs. In the case of the Reagan MOVIE--that's right, MOVIE, not documentary, not biography, not term paper, thesis, or dissertation--the carping about every minor detail is indicative of how the right these days is not merely annoying but completely asinine.