So you do believe in censorship before the fact? Apparently you do. Preventing a film to be seen or to be judged on its own merits is far worse a crime than being insensitive to the Reagan's. Additionally, who cares about the contracts sold? That's the network's business and has nothing to do with this argument.
Your selective reading, and editing, denied you the self-evident answer. I'll help you complete my quote "...the differences between an opportunity to boycott her on-going TV show without scripted evidence,versus the disingenuousness of demanding the same chance for this ?film? after one-time commercial contracts are sold and the movie aired."
Of course, it is not "before the fact", i.e.; the film script and trailer has been made available to public sources and its contents have been extensively reviewed and, according to most, found lacking.
If in response, people do not wish to see it, or subsidize its message, they have an unfettered right to do so! Naturally, CBS's profit on this film has to do with this argument, its their motive for its production and distribution - and the whole point of the boycott. Perhaps you are trying to say that "boycotts" should having nothing to do with this or are somehow unethical, if so I would be amazed, given that some of the first boycotts were created by the activist left (e.g. the United Farm Workers) on political issues - or is it just that now your ox is being gored?
Quote:
Speaking of disingenuousness, your statement assumes conservatives would be hunky dory with this film if Reagan were already gone. I think not. It is the direct agenda of the RNC to insure that Reagan is enshrined as the epitome of presidential lore. Everything that gets in the way will be destroyed.
Not having access to the RNC's "direct agenda', as you seem to, I cannot say. However, I do note that most of the fire against this film has been from very diverse sources, from commentators (not just conservatives) to grassroots letter writing and emailing. The outrage is genuine my friend. And while no conservative would be happy with the film's portrayal of Reagan, my point (and the point of others) is that doing a mean-spirited, fictional, TV dramatization to a living President, who is dying, is particularly outrageous.
Quote:
So what?
So what ? Well that sums it up does it not? You haven?t a clue as to the traditional respect usually accorded living ex-Presidents in the visual media, especially those that are terminally ill. So when an over-the-top hit piece against Reagan is promised, your silent cry is: "do it now, tradition be damned, get that man". True ?
Quote:
I don't agree. No one's kicking anyone. The minute Reagan entered the public arena, especially the presidential one, he forfeited the right not to get kicked, or to be examined, and re-examined, in great detail. So please, remember that when your party starts kicking the next Democratic nominee and hides under the "full disclosure" act.
See my previous statements. But if those are now the bare-knuckle rules, fine - then don't whine about conservative boycotts. The minute CBS entered the "public arena" of politics (oh I'm sorry "art") "especially the presidential one (they) forfeited the right not to get kicked, or to be examined, and re-examined in great detail."
Quote:
Dead or alive. Sick or not. His presidential legacy is alive and kicking and it should be subjected to artistic interpretation. If that makes me cold and callous, so be it.
I think you were reveling - no comment needed.
Quote:
If Jimmy Carter were going down in history as one of the greatest presidents of all time, like Reagan is (just or unjustly), then I welcome a candid motion picture about his life. But, to use your logic, we're not talking about Jimmy Carter, are we?
No, we've been talking about the respected treatment of ex-Presidents (unless that only applies to Carter and not Reagan, hmmmm?) In fact, you admit that you don't support an "artistic interpretation" of Carter's legacy...You really don't mean that, do you? Does the "hypocrisy" come to mind?
Max, lay off the bold please, thanks. What you're quoting and what you're writing all blur into one. I'm with Northgate on this one,and by the way, check out his film, it was good, short but good. Art, even.
"So now weÕre in a new media century. I shed no tears for ÒThe Reagans,Ó which will not make me rush out and subscribe to Showtime. Unless you count ÒThe Missiles of October,Ó there was no golden age of TV docu-dramas, which have always been the cheesiest meal on the media food chain. Primetime television is uncorruptible, because there has never been anything left to corrupt in the first place.
But IÕm glad for the artistic and historical advice now booming through the elephant echo chamber. ItÕs good to know that network docu-dramas are, forthwith, supposed to be Òtrue,Ó unless, of course, the truth is somehow ÒoffensiveÓ to the myth, then weÕll take the myth, as long as the myth corresponds to the reigning politics of the moment.
One thingÕs for sure: When they make ÒThe Bush DynastyÓ docudrama, that ÒMission AccomplishedÓ banner wonÕt be visible in the scene on the aircraft carrier. "
Max, lay off the bold please, thanks. What you're quoting and what you're writing all blur into one. I'm with Northgate on this one,and by the way, check out his film, it was good, short but good. Art, even.
Sorry, a little carless, got rid of the bold entirely. Exactily, how does one check out his film?
Your selective reading, and editing, denied you the self-evident answer. I'll help you complete my quote "...the differences between an opportunity to boycott her on-going TV show without scripted evidence,versus the disingenuousness of demanding the same chance for this ?film? after one-time commercial contracts are sold and the movie aired."
Of course, it is not "before the fact", i.e.; the film script and trailer has been made available to public sources and its contents have been extensively reviewed and, according to most, found lacking.
My selective quoting was not to be deceptive, but to debate the latter part of your original statement. Because I'm a filmmaker, I understand the permutations and transformations a film goes through. The script is only one part of a multi-phase process. The script is filtered and interpreted by the cast and the filmmakers during principal photography. A script's dialog and/or stage direction will often get changed, last minute, on the set. Often times an actor will change or delete a line to improve the performance or drama. The director often does the same. It's not uncommon for the film's entire "tone" to change drastically during either this phase or during editing. In other words, the script is usually very different from the finished film, sometimes better, sometimes worse.
Film trailers are also very very deceptive tools used by the marketing department to "sell" the movie. How many trailers have you seen the hooked you, got you in the theater, and you were later disappointed that you didn't see the film that was advertised?
Quote:
If in response, people do not wish to see it, or subsidize its message, they have an unfettered right to do so! Naturally, CBS's profit on this film has to do with this argument, its their motive for its production and distribution - and the whole point of the boycott. Perhaps you are trying to say that "boycotts" should having nothing to do with this or are somehow unethical, if so I would be amazed, given that some of the first boycotts were created by the activist left (e.g. the United Farm Workers) on political issues - or is it just that now your ox is being gored?
I agree with what you say here. Boycotts are free game for anyone who feels disenfranchised or upset. My point is that we are not nor will be at this stage. Since CBS already pulled the film, boycotts are a mute point.
Quote:
Not having access to the RNC's "direct agenda', as you seem to, I cannot say. However, I do note that most of the fire against this film has been from very diverse sources, from commentators (not just conservatives) to grassroots letter writing and emailing. The outrage is genuine my friend. And while no conservative would be happy with the film's portrayal of Reagan, my point (and the point of others) is that doing a mean-spirited, fictional, TV dramatization to a living President, who is dying, is particularly outrageous.
I recognize that the outrage is genuine. I also recognize that the majority of the outrage is either coming from the right or is, at the very least, fueled by the right's media outlets (AM radio, cable news talk shows). In other words, I feel that the hysteria is a bit manufactured and trumped up. And no, I don't have access to the GOP's "direct agenda", but all you have to do is listen the rhetoric on the airways. The glorification of all things Reagan by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc and their vitriolic response to any criticism of him is enough to support my assertions that there is an agenda amongst conservatives to insure Reagan's panthionic iconography.
I still stand by my original statement that no film about Reagan (that is anything other than a glorified love-fest) will be tolerated. I believe if future film projects are hard hitting about Reagan it will be systematically discredit before release. Fiercely so.
Quote:
So what ? Well that sums it up does it not? You haven?t a clue as to the traditional respect usually accorded living ex-Presidents in the visual media, especially those that are terminally ill. So when an over-the-top hit piece against Reagan is promised, your silent cry is: "do it now, tradition be damned, get that man". True ?
First, because I grew up during the Reagan years, I can't help but have a lot of nostalgic feelings for the man. I respect him for making Americans feel proud to be patriotic. I respect his hardline handling of the Soviets. I don't think a film should've been made yet, but I also support any artist/filmmaker who chooses to do so. And just because the filmmaker (or author) asks tough questions doesn't constitute "get that man". Promotion of thought and debate, I used to believe, was considered healthy. Don't be so blinded by a hatred of all things liberal.
Quote:
See my previous statements. But if those are now the bare-knuckle rules, fine - then don't whine about conservative boycotts. The minute CBS entered the "public arena" of politics (oh I'm sorry "art") "especially the presidential one (they) forfeited the right not to get kicked, or to be examined, and re-examined in great detail."
Absolutely. But let's not get condescending. The new generation of bare-knuckle rules were written by Republicans when they decided "Clinton's not our president!" So, please forgive me if I have absolutely no sympathy for the conservative outcry.
Quote:
No, we've been talking about the respected treatment of ex-Presidents (unless that only applies to Carter and not Reagan, hmmmm?) In fact, you admit that you don't support an "artistic interpretation" of Carter's legacy...You really don't mean that, do you? Does the "hypocrisy" come to mind?
Whoa. You might want to read some of my earlier posts. I more than welcome a hard-hitting film about an unpopular president. If anything, Carter should be great fodder for a controversial bio-pic since he's so loathed, mocked and ridiculed by the right.
Quote:
It does make one curious about your "films"...
Let's not get personal. I enjoy debating politics. We simply have a disagreement over the "judgment" of CBS and the public at large. I recognize I'm in the extreme minority on this issue. I also recognize that I have a propensity for standing up for the rights of fellow filmmakers.
In the end, this argument is mute since CBS is moving the film to Showtime unedited (respectively). I expect the film to be terrible as most made-for-tv movie are. However, I also expect the film NOT to be as one-sided as everyone claims.
Northgate, maybe Max has checked out your movie now that I pointed him in the direction of your sig. I did enjoy Expired , though the dialogue sounded a little boxy for some reason. The male lead was great, but then he is English, shouldn't he have been cast as the villain?! All the best to you, Alex. PS I'm still disturbed by CBS and their actions.
Max, lay off the bold please, thanks. What you're quoting and what you're writing all blur into one. I'm with Northgate on this one,and by the way, check out his film, it was good, short but good. Art, even.
Fascinating article from Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan:
Quote:
CBS Cancels Reagan Miniseries
For further proof that the First Amendment only protects free speech from the US government (mostly), but not from the large corporations, CBS has caved to rightwing pressure to shelve their miniseries on Ronald Reagan. It was a relatively negative portrayal. But the presidents don't belong to the right wing, they belong to all Americans, and we can all be critical of any of them when we choose.
In fact, of course, Ronald Reagan bears substantial responsibility for September 11. He and his administration were so gung ho to roll back Communism that they funneled billions of dollars to scruffy far rightwing radical Muslim mujahidin in Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Orrin Hatch even flew to Beijing for Reagan in 1985 to ask the Chinese to pressure Pakistan to allow the US to provide the Mujahidin with ever more sophisticated weaponry. Even the Pakistani military had initially balked at this crazy idea, knowing who the Gulbuddin Hikmatyars and Usama Bin Ladens really were (unlike clueless Reagan, who called them freedom fighters). But the US twisted the Pakistanis' arms, and they gave in. Likewise, Reagan forced the timid Saudis to match US contributions to the Mujahidin. (And then after Sept. 11 the former Reagan officials who had twisted the arms of the Saudis, like Richard Perle, turned around and blamed Riyadh for spreading radical Muslim ideas!!) It was the CIA that first established terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to hit the leftist government in Kabul. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the camps used by al-Qaeda had been built originally by the Reagan administration.
Then after the Reagan administration contributed to the destruction of Afghanistan with this proxy war, its successor, the Bush administration, made a deal with the Soviets for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan once the Soviets were gone. The US just walked away, leaving the country in chaos. The right often tries to blame Clinton for this, but it was Bush senior that agreed to the deal and walked away, before Clinton ever got in.
The Christian Coalition and other rightwing religious groups supporting Reagan even had a "biblical checklist" by which they wanted all senators and congressmen to be judged. And one of the items in the "biblical checklist" was "support for the Afghan 'freedom fighters.' The rightwing Christians were saying in the 1980s that if you didn't support al-Qaeda and its Mujahidin allies, you didn't deserve to be in Congress! They wanted representatives tossed out for this crime. And now the same groups are droning on about how the Prophet Muhammad was a terrorist, cashing in on Sept. 11 to spread religious bigotry. But the Prophet Muhammad opposed terrorism. Who promoted al-Qaeda and kindred groups? Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan.
Why did CBS cave? Maybe some advertisers threatened to pull out, in the face of threatened boycotts by special interest advocacy groups. The US has the oddest system. Technically, the airwaves belong to the US public. But the unelected Federal Communications Commission gives away the right to broadcast on them virtually for free to large corporations. Initially the corporations were supposed to broadcast some socially useful programs in return, and were supposed to maintain some sort of political balance. But now they don't do either. (People who watched CBS news were as likely as people who watched Fox Cable News to believe falsehoods such as that Saddam was mixed up in 9/11 or that Iraq was close to having a nuke.)
Then once the people's airwaves have been given away to the corporations, they rent them to other corporations to sell us their products, thus paying for the programs we see. Programming is subsidiary to the advertisements that pay for it. If advertisers won't support programming, it gets pulled, so that they have a veto on what the people can watch. Of course, there is a double corporate veto, since the networks themselves censor what can be seen to begin with. Television execs active in the 1960s remember being told to avoid showing labor activists in their programs, e.g. When's the last time you saw a character on t.v. who was explicitly active in a union?
Michael Powell (Colin's son who is far more rightwing than his father) was even going to let a handful of corporations control all programming, but that was too much even for Congress.
So the US is becoming Berlusconi-ized, with a few fabulously wealthy men deciding what appears in our media, and with Bush's tax giveaways to the super-rich giving them the wherewithal to buy up even more of the country's media.
And we can't even point out on television, with the people's airwaves, that Reagan went off the deep end on Afghanistan, or that he shredded the Constitution with Iran-Contra.
"Amazing but true, the far-right media machine has successfully held CBS entertainment to a higher standard of truth regarding the docudrama, ÒThe ReagansÓ thanÊthe news media manages to hold the Bush administration regarding the war in Iraq. The ability of these would-be censors to Òwork the refsÓ on the issue of the CBS movie, ÒThe ReagansÓ is truly impressive. Setting a new standard for accuracy in TV docudramasÊ- something that never troubled them, for instance, when a network had to invent a voice of morality in the Reagan White House for an Ollie North biopic based onÊGuts And Glory: The Rise And Fall Of Oliver NorthÊby Ben Bradlee Jr.Õs, because none existed in real lifeÊ- the right not only got CBS to walk away fromÊits $9 millionÊinvestment, it got them to excise a statement emanating from ReaganÕs mouth that was largely accurate.
In the miniseries, scriptwriters had President Reagan saying to Nancy, as she tries to get him to demonstrate a bit of compassion towards people dying of AIDS, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." Yet according to the authorized biography, "Dutch" by Edmund Morris, what Reagan really said was "maybe the Lord brought down this plague" becauseÊ"illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."
In any case, it is hardly insignificant that President Reagan did not manage to utter the word ÒAIDSÓ in public until 1987. In doing so, he offered us all a lessonÊabout how silence can sometimes speak more loudly than words. (By 1987, more than 21,000 suffered from the disease and nearly than 12,000 had already died.)...
Yet no one had any trouble with conservative James Woods' portrayal of Rudy Guiliani or the recent movie glorifying President Bush on Showtime?
I saw that 9-11 Showtime movie, twice now. It must be the most historically inaccurate whitewash of a film ever made. The acting was stilted to the point of embarrassment and the script was pure fiction, and bad fiction at that. Actually, if viewed as a tragi-comedy or farce, it succeeded, because in a twisted kind of way, it was hilarious, if not so freaking sad.
Don't read this if you want to believe Ann Coulter gets her facts straight.
The other night I was enlisted to appear on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss the controversy over the CBS miniseries on Ronald and Nancy Reagan. On the other side was Coulter, the over-the-top-and-over-the-edge conservative author whose latest book literally brands all liberals as treasonous. Conservatives and Republicans have howled that the Reagan movie was a travesty, complaining it portrays Reagan as out of it in the White House and callous toward AIDS victims. On air, I noted that since the movie, as far as I could tell, does not detail how Reagan had cozied up to the apartheid regime of South Africa, the murderous dictator of Chile, and the death-squad-enabling government of El Salvador, it indeed has a problem with accuracy. But the miniseries' true sin seems to be its schlockiness. The available clips make it look like Dynasty meets Mommie Dearest set in the White House.
Coulter started more restrained than usual, though she predictably bashed Hollywood liberals for trying to undermine the historical standing of a president they despised by resorting to trashy revisionism. Perhaps she even had a point. Who could tell what the producers were aiming at? But then she jumped the tracks. She claimed that the movie Patton was made by Holly-libs with "hatred in their hearts" for George S. Patton, the brilliant but erratic World War II general. These filmmakers "intended to make Patton look terrible," she maintained, but because they produced an accurate work, the movie ended up making "Patton look great and people loved him."
Was Patton a left-wing Hollywood conspiracy that backfired? Host Chris Matthews immediately challenged her in his subtle fashion: "You are dead wrong." He pushed her for proof, and she replied, "That is why George C. Scott turned down his Academy Award for playing Patton." Coulter was suggesting that Scott had spurned his Oscar because the filmmakers plan to destroy Patton's image by portraying the general "as negatively as possible" had gone awry.
Matthews wasn't buying. "Who told you that, who told you that?" he shouted. Her Oracle-like response: "It is well known." She added, "Why did you think he turned down the award, Chris? You never looked that up? It never occurred to you?"
Matthews retorted, "Because he said he wasn't going to a meat parade, because he didn't believe in award ceremonies." And Matthews was right. Following the show, I took Coulter's advice and did look it up. I found a 1999 obituary of Scott that noted he had stunned Hollywood in 1971 for being the first person ever to refuse an Academy Award. He had explained his action by slamming such awards as "demeaning" and he had dismissed the Oscar ceremony as a "two-hour meat parade." (Matthews receives extra points for getting this quote correct.) Coulter had twisted this well-documented episode into yet more proof that liberals--especially those in Hollywood--are conspiratorial traitors.
After I described this exchange to someone who once worked with her, he said, "That's Ann. She lives in her own world and she just makes things up." This interlude concerned a small matter. (Who knew we would be debating one of my favorite movies?) But this minor dustup provided evidence to support a serious charge. As Matthews remarked while wrapping up the segment, "Facts mean nothing to you, Ann." If so, why continue to have her on? :
Reagan was no doddering fool, but his rather extreme mental and emotional detachment were at the time noted not only by his critics but by many of his political allies. Liberals like Chatterbox who struggled to persuade themselves that Reagan had more on the ball than he seemed saw their worst suspicions confirmed in the memoirs of former Reagan aides. Here's former chief of staff Donald Regan in For the Record:
"In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one. From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants. The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to accomplish in the field of economics."
To pin any blame on Mr. Reagan for the terrorist attacks of spetember 2001, is as idiotic and dishonest as to pin blame for it on Mr. Clinton.
As for suggesting that balking Pakistanis and timid (?!!) Saudis have had their arms twisted by the crazy Yanks to favour the Rabbanis and the Hekmatyars, is completely disconnected from the reality of the Afghan Jihad; that brainless professor is no better than that stupid lady branding all liberals as treasonous.
Comments
Originally posted by Northgate
So you do believe in censorship before the fact? Apparently you do. Preventing a film to be seen or to be judged on its own merits is far worse a crime than being insensitive to the Reagan's. Additionally, who cares about the contracts sold? That's the network's business and has nothing to do with this argument.
Your selective reading, and editing, denied you the self-evident answer. I'll help you complete my quote "...the differences between an opportunity to boycott her on-going TV show without scripted evidence,versus the disingenuousness of demanding the same chance for this ?film? after one-time commercial contracts are sold and the movie aired."
Of course, it is not "before the fact", i.e.; the film script and trailer has been made available to public sources and its contents have been extensively reviewed and, according to most, found lacking.
If in response, people do not wish to see it, or subsidize its message, they have an unfettered right to do so! Naturally, CBS's profit on this film has to do with this argument, its their motive for its production and distribution - and the whole point of the boycott. Perhaps you are trying to say that "boycotts" should having nothing to do with this or are somehow unethical, if so I would be amazed, given that some of the first boycotts were created by the activist left (e.g. the United Farm Workers) on political issues - or is it just that now your ox is being gored?
Speaking of disingenuousness, your statement assumes conservatives would be hunky dory with this film if Reagan were already gone. I think not. It is the direct agenda of the RNC to insure that Reagan is enshrined as the epitome of presidential lore. Everything that gets in the way will be destroyed.
Not having access to the RNC's "direct agenda', as you seem to, I cannot say. However, I do note that most of the fire against this film has been from very diverse sources, from commentators (not just conservatives) to grassroots letter writing and emailing. The outrage is genuine my friend. And while no conservative would be happy with the film's portrayal of Reagan, my point (and the point of others) is that doing a mean-spirited, fictional, TV dramatization to a living President, who is dying, is particularly outrageous.
So what?
So what ? Well that sums it up does it not? You haven?t a clue as to the traditional respect usually accorded living ex-Presidents in the visual media, especially those that are terminally ill. So when an over-the-top hit piece against Reagan is promised, your silent cry is: "do it now, tradition be damned, get that man". True ?
I don't agree. No one's kicking anyone. The minute Reagan entered the public arena, especially the presidential one, he forfeited the right not to get kicked, or to be examined, and re-examined, in great detail. So please, remember that when your party starts kicking the next Democratic nominee and hides under the "full disclosure" act.
See my previous statements. But if those are now the bare-knuckle rules, fine - then don't whine about conservative boycotts. The minute CBS entered the "public arena" of politics (oh I'm sorry "art") "especially the presidential one (they) forfeited the right not to get kicked, or to be examined, and re-examined in great detail."
Dead or alive. Sick or not. His presidential legacy is alive and kicking and it should be subjected to artistic interpretation. If that makes me cold and callous, so be it.
I think you were reveling - no comment needed.
If Jimmy Carter were going down in history as one of the greatest presidents of all time, like Reagan is (just or unjustly), then I welcome a candid motion picture about his life. But, to use your logic, we're not talking about Jimmy Carter, are we?
No, we've been talking about the respected treatment of ex-Presidents (unless that only applies to Carter and not Reagan, hmmmm?) In fact, you admit that you don't support an "artistic interpretation" of Carter's legacy...You really don't mean that, do you? Does the "hypocrisy" come to mind?
It does make one curious about your "films"...
From Counterspin.
BEDTIME FOR BONZO: Frankly, I say "good riddance" to that steaming turd "The Reagans" TV mini series.
Not because I like the Reagans, or want to protect their image. But because the very fact that piece of crap was
even having a TV series made about him and his shrew of a wife was offensive to me.
Why does Ronald Reagan deserve a TV mini series? The man isn't even dead yet.
They've done series' on JFK and Harry S. Truman, both of whom had been dead for decades at the time.
We could have a better historical perspective on their lives and Presidencies.
In Reagan's case, a significant number of former Reagan adminsitration officials are members of the current Bush administration!
And his Presidency is still subject to interpretation. There is the correct one [he was an overrated, telegenic ideolgue], and the reverent,
bullshit one [he was the greatest President of the 20th centrury, and maybe even in history].
This was a bad idea from the beginning, and I'm glad it got dumped. In fact, it's better that it was cancelled rather than having the suits
at CBS hack the thing up, and take out all the factually supported negative information about Ron and Nancy.
It's bad enough the program was going to give credit to Reagan for winning the cold war!
So...I say: "Hasta la Vista!"
And over at MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/news/989262.asp
"So now weÕre in a new media century. I shed no tears for ÒThe Reagans,Ó which will not make me rush out and subscribe to Showtime. Unless you count ÒThe Missiles of October,Ó there was no golden age of TV docu-dramas, which have always been the cheesiest meal on the media food chain. Primetime television is uncorruptible, because there has never been anything left to corrupt in the first place.
But IÕm glad for the artistic and historical advice now booming through the elephant echo chamber. ItÕs good to know that network docu-dramas are, forthwith, supposed to be Òtrue,Ó unless, of course, the truth is somehow ÒoffensiveÓ to the myth, then weÕll take the myth, as long as the myth corresponds to the reigning politics of the moment.
One thingÕs for sure: When they make ÒThe Bush DynastyÓ docudrama, that ÒMission AccomplishedÓ banner wonÕt be visible in the scene on the aircraft carrier. "
Originally posted by Alex London
Max, lay off the bold please, thanks. What you're quoting and what you're writing all blur into one. I'm with Northgate on this one,and by the way, check out his film, it was good, short but good. Art, even.
Sorry, a little carless, got rid of the bold entirely. Exactily, how does one check out his film?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Your selective reading, and editing, denied you the self-evident answer. I'll help you complete my quote "...the differences between an opportunity to boycott her on-going TV show without scripted evidence,versus the disingenuousness of demanding the same chance for this ?film? after one-time commercial contracts are sold and the movie aired."
Of course, it is not "before the fact", i.e.; the film script and trailer has been made available to public sources and its contents have been extensively reviewed and, according to most, found lacking.
My selective quoting was not to be deceptive, but to debate the latter part of your original statement. Because I'm a filmmaker, I understand the permutations and transformations a film goes through. The script is only one part of a multi-phase process. The script is filtered and interpreted by the cast and the filmmakers during principal photography. A script's dialog and/or stage direction will often get changed, last minute, on the set. Often times an actor will change or delete a line to improve the performance or drama. The director often does the same. It's not uncommon for the film's entire "tone" to change drastically during either this phase or during editing. In other words, the script is usually very different from the finished film, sometimes better, sometimes worse.
Film trailers are also very very deceptive tools used by the marketing department to "sell" the movie. How many trailers have you seen the hooked you, got you in the theater, and you were later disappointed that you didn't see the film that was advertised?
If in response, people do not wish to see it, or subsidize its message, they have an unfettered right to do so! Naturally, CBS's profit on this film has to do with this argument, its their motive for its production and distribution - and the whole point of the boycott. Perhaps you are trying to say that "boycotts" should having nothing to do with this or are somehow unethical, if so I would be amazed, given that some of the first boycotts were created by the activist left (e.g. the United Farm Workers) on political issues - or is it just that now your ox is being gored?
I agree with what you say here. Boycotts are free game for anyone who feels disenfranchised or upset. My point is that we are not nor will be at this stage. Since CBS already pulled the film, boycotts are a mute point.
Not having access to the RNC's "direct agenda', as you seem to, I cannot say. However, I do note that most of the fire against this film has been from very diverse sources, from commentators (not just conservatives) to grassroots letter writing and emailing. The outrage is genuine my friend. And while no conservative would be happy with the film's portrayal of Reagan, my point (and the point of others) is that doing a mean-spirited, fictional, TV dramatization to a living President, who is dying, is particularly outrageous.
I recognize that the outrage is genuine. I also recognize that the majority of the outrage is either coming from the right or is, at the very least, fueled by the right's media outlets (AM radio, cable news talk shows). In other words, I feel that the hysteria is a bit manufactured and trumped up. And no, I don't have access to the GOP's "direct agenda", but all you have to do is listen the rhetoric on the airways. The glorification of all things Reagan by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc and their vitriolic response to any criticism of him is enough to support my assertions that there is an agenda amongst conservatives to insure Reagan's panthionic iconography.
I still stand by my original statement that no film about Reagan (that is anything other than a glorified love-fest) will be tolerated. I believe if future film projects are hard hitting about Reagan it will be systematically discredit before release. Fiercely so.
So what ? Well that sums it up does it not? You haven?t a clue as to the traditional respect usually accorded living ex-Presidents in the visual media, especially those that are terminally ill. So when an over-the-top hit piece against Reagan is promised, your silent cry is: "do it now, tradition be damned, get that man". True ?
First, because I grew up during the Reagan years, I can't help but have a lot of nostalgic feelings for the man. I respect him for making Americans feel proud to be patriotic. I respect his hardline handling of the Soviets. I don't think a film should've been made yet, but I also support any artist/filmmaker who chooses to do so. And just because the filmmaker (or author) asks tough questions doesn't constitute "get that man". Promotion of thought and debate, I used to believe, was considered healthy. Don't be so blinded by a hatred of all things liberal.
See my previous statements. But if those are now the bare-knuckle rules, fine - then don't whine about conservative boycotts. The minute CBS entered the "public arena" of politics (oh I'm sorry "art") "especially the presidential one (they) forfeited the right not to get kicked, or to be examined, and re-examined in great detail."
Absolutely. But let's not get condescending. The new generation of bare-knuckle rules were written by Republicans when they decided "Clinton's not our president!" So, please forgive me if I have absolutely no sympathy for the conservative outcry.
No, we've been talking about the respected treatment of ex-Presidents (unless that only applies to Carter and not Reagan, hmmmm?) In fact, you admit that you don't support an "artistic interpretation" of Carter's legacy...You really don't mean that, do you? Does the "hypocrisy" come to mind?
Whoa. You might want to read some of my earlier posts. I more than welcome a hard-hitting film about an unpopular president. If anything, Carter should be great fodder for a controversial bio-pic since he's so loathed, mocked and ridiculed by the right.
It does make one curious about your "films"...
Let's not get personal. I enjoy debating politics. We simply have a disagreement over the "judgment" of CBS and the public at large. I recognize I'm in the extreme minority on this issue. I also recognize that I have a propensity for standing up for the rights of fellow filmmakers.
In the end, this argument is mute since CBS is moving the film to Showtime unedited (respectively). I expect the film to be terrible as most made-for-tv movie are. However, I also expect the film NOT to be as one-sided as everyone claims.
Originally posted by Alex London
Max, lay off the bold please, thanks. What you're quoting and what you're writing all blur into one. I'm with Northgate on this one,and by the way, check out his film, it was good, short but good. Art, even.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
CBS Cancels Reagan Miniseries
For further proof that the First Amendment only protects free speech from the US government (mostly), but not from the large corporations, CBS has caved to rightwing pressure to shelve their miniseries on Ronald Reagan. It was a relatively negative portrayal. But the presidents don't belong to the right wing, they belong to all Americans, and we can all be critical of any of them when we choose.
In fact, of course, Ronald Reagan bears substantial responsibility for September 11. He and his administration were so gung ho to roll back Communism that they funneled billions of dollars to scruffy far rightwing radical Muslim mujahidin in Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Orrin Hatch even flew to Beijing for Reagan in 1985 to ask the Chinese to pressure Pakistan to allow the US to provide the Mujahidin with ever more sophisticated weaponry. Even the Pakistani military had initially balked at this crazy idea, knowing who the Gulbuddin Hikmatyars and Usama Bin Ladens really were (unlike clueless Reagan, who called them freedom fighters). But the US twisted the Pakistanis' arms, and they gave in. Likewise, Reagan forced the timid Saudis to match US contributions to the Mujahidin. (And then after Sept. 11 the former Reagan officials who had twisted the arms of the Saudis, like Richard Perle, turned around and blamed Riyadh for spreading radical Muslim ideas!!) It was the CIA that first established terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to hit the leftist government in Kabul. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the camps used by al-Qaeda had been built originally by the Reagan administration.
Then after the Reagan administration contributed to the destruction of Afghanistan with this proxy war, its successor, the Bush administration, made a deal with the Soviets for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan once the Soviets were gone. The US just walked away, leaving the country in chaos. The right often tries to blame Clinton for this, but it was Bush senior that agreed to the deal and walked away, before Clinton ever got in.
The Christian Coalition and other rightwing religious groups supporting Reagan even had a "biblical checklist" by which they wanted all senators and congressmen to be judged. And one of the items in the "biblical checklist" was "support for the Afghan 'freedom fighters.' The rightwing Christians were saying in the 1980s that if you didn't support al-Qaeda and its Mujahidin allies, you didn't deserve to be in Congress! They wanted representatives tossed out for this crime. And now the same groups are droning on about how the Prophet Muhammad was a terrorist, cashing in on Sept. 11 to spread religious bigotry. But the Prophet Muhammad opposed terrorism. Who promoted al-Qaeda and kindred groups? Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan.
Why did CBS cave? Maybe some advertisers threatened to pull out, in the face of threatened boycotts by special interest advocacy groups. The US has the oddest system. Technically, the airwaves belong to the US public. But the unelected Federal Communications Commission gives away the right to broadcast on them virtually for free to large corporations. Initially the corporations were supposed to broadcast some socially useful programs in return, and were supposed to maintain some sort of political balance. But now they don't do either. (People who watched CBS news were as likely as people who watched Fox Cable News to believe falsehoods such as that Saddam was mixed up in 9/11 or that Iraq was close to having a nuke.)
Then once the people's airwaves have been given away to the corporations, they rent them to other corporations to sell us their products, thus paying for the programs we see. Programming is subsidiary to the advertisements that pay for it. If advertisers won't support programming, it gets pulled, so that they have a veto on what the people can watch. Of course, there is a double corporate veto, since the networks themselves censor what can be seen to begin with. Television execs active in the 1960s remember being told to avoid showing labor activists in their programs, e.g. When's the last time you saw a character on t.v. who was explicitly active in a union?
Michael Powell (Colin's son who is far more rightwing than his father) was even going to let a handful of corporations control all programming, but that was too much even for Congress.
So the US is becoming Berlusconi-ized, with a few fabulously wealthy men deciding what appears in our media, and with Bush's tax giveaways to the super-rich giving them the wherewithal to buy up even more of the country's media.
And we can't even point out on television, with the people's airwaves, that Reagan went off the deep end on Afghanistan, or that he shredded the Constitution with Iran-Contra.
"Amazing but true, the far-right media machine has successfully held CBS entertainment to a higher standard of truth regarding the docudrama, ÒThe ReagansÓ thanÊthe news media manages to hold the Bush administration regarding the war in Iraq. The ability of these would-be censors to Òwork the refsÓ on the issue of the CBS movie, ÒThe ReagansÓ is truly impressive. Setting a new standard for accuracy in TV docudramasÊ- something that never troubled them, for instance, when a network had to invent a voice of morality in the Reagan White House for an Ollie North biopic based onÊGuts And Glory: The Rise And Fall Of Oliver NorthÊby Ben Bradlee Jr.Õs, because none existed in real lifeÊ- the right not only got CBS to walk away fromÊits $9 millionÊinvestment, it got them to excise a statement emanating from ReaganÕs mouth that was largely accurate.
In the miniseries, scriptwriters had President Reagan saying to Nancy, as she tries to get him to demonstrate a bit of compassion towards people dying of AIDS, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." Yet according to the authorized biography, "Dutch" by Edmund Morris, what Reagan really said was "maybe the Lord brought down this plague" becauseÊ"illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."
In any case, it is hardly insignificant that President Reagan did not manage to utter the word ÒAIDSÓ in public until 1987. In doing so, he offered us all a lessonÊabout how silence can sometimes speak more loudly than words. (By 1987, more than 21,000 suffered from the disease and nearly than 12,000 had already died.)...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yet no one had any trouble with conservative James Woods' portrayal of Rudy Guiliani or the recent movie glorifying President Bush on Showtime?
I saw that 9-11 Showtime movie, twice now. It must be the most historically inaccurate whitewash of a film ever made. The acting was stilted to the point of embarrassment and the script was pure fiction, and bad fiction at that. Actually, if viewed as a tragi-comedy or farce, it succeeded, because in a twisted kind of way, it was hilarious, if not so freaking sad.
Ann Coulter's making it all up again! hehe
"Don't read this if you like Ann Coulter.
Don't read this if you want to believe Ann Coulter gets her facts straight.
The other night I was enlisted to appear on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss the controversy over the CBS miniseries on Ronald and Nancy Reagan. On the other side was Coulter, the over-the-top-and-over-the-edge conservative author whose latest book literally brands all liberals as treasonous. Conservatives and Republicans have howled that the Reagan movie was a travesty, complaining it portrays Reagan as out of it in the White House and callous toward AIDS victims. On air, I noted that since the movie, as far as I could tell, does not detail how Reagan had cozied up to the apartheid regime of South Africa, the murderous dictator of Chile, and the death-squad-enabling government of El Salvador, it indeed has a problem with accuracy. But the miniseries' true sin seems to be its schlockiness. The available clips make it look like Dynasty meets Mommie Dearest set in the White House.
Coulter started more restrained than usual, though she predictably bashed Hollywood liberals for trying to undermine the historical standing of a president they despised by resorting to trashy revisionism. Perhaps she even had a point. Who could tell what the producers were aiming at? But then she jumped the tracks. She claimed that the movie Patton was made by Holly-libs with "hatred in their hearts" for George S. Patton, the brilliant but erratic World War II general. These filmmakers "intended to make Patton look terrible," she maintained, but because they produced an accurate work, the movie ended up making "Patton look great and people loved him."
Was Patton a left-wing Hollywood conspiracy that backfired? Host Chris Matthews immediately challenged her in his subtle fashion: "You are dead wrong." He pushed her for proof, and she replied, "That is why George C. Scott turned down his Academy Award for playing Patton." Coulter was suggesting that Scott had spurned his Oscar because the filmmakers plan to destroy Patton's image by portraying the general "as negatively as possible" had gone awry.
Matthews wasn't buying. "Who told you that, who told you that?" he shouted. Her Oracle-like response: "It is well known." She added, "Why did you think he turned down the award, Chris? You never looked that up? It never occurred to you?"
Matthews retorted, "Because he said he wasn't going to a meat parade, because he didn't believe in award ceremonies." And Matthews was right. Following the show, I took Coulter's advice and did look it up. I found a 1999 obituary of Scott that noted he had stunned Hollywood in 1971 for being the first person ever to refuse an Academy Award. He had explained his action by slamming such awards as "demeaning" and he had dismissed the Oscar ceremony as a "two-hour meat parade." (Matthews receives extra points for getting this quote correct.) Coulter had twisted this well-documented episode into yet more proof that liberals--especially those in Hollywood--are conspiratorial traitors.
After I described this exchange to someone who once worked with her, he said, "That's Ann. She lives in her own world and she just makes things up." This interlude concerned a small matter. (Who knew we would be debating one of my favorite movies?) But this minor dustup provided evidence to support a serious charge. As Matthews remarked while wrapping up the segment, "Facts mean nothing to you, Ann." If so, why continue to have her on? :
http://slate.msn.com/id/2090834/
A small excerpt:
Reagan was no doddering fool, but his rather extreme mental and emotional detachment were at the time noted not only by his critics but by many of his political allies. Liberals like Chatterbox who struggled to persuade themselves that Reagan had more on the ball than he seemed saw their worst suspicions confirmed in the memoirs of former Reagan aides. Here's former chief of staff Donald Regan in For the Record:
"In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one. From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants. The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to accomplish in the field of economics."
As for suggesting that balking Pakistanis and timid (?!!) Saudis have had their arms twisted by the crazy Yanks to favour the Rabbanis and the Hekmatyars, is completely disconnected from the reality of the Afghan Jihad; that brainless professor is no better than that stupid lady branding all liberals as treasonous.
[Edited for the careless mistakes, as usual]
http://images.salon.com/news/feature...pt/reagans.pdf
8MB in size