Ronald Reagan Still Triggers Hollywood
Like the man, "Reagan" is dismissed by critics and loved by the masses.
Few people deserved a film more than Ronald Reagan, the president who revitalized America in the 1980s.
Unsurprisingly, Hollywood refused to give him his due. In a labor of love, maverick producer Mark Joseph spent a decade working to raise millions of dollars from beyond the Hollywood scene. “Reagan” is a testament to his tenacity, and we now have a biographical film that's causing a stir.
The response to the film shows that, even now, Reagan still deeply divides the country's elites from its people.
The movie stars Dennis Quaid as Reagan, and tells the story through the eyes of a fictional Soviet agent, played by Jon Voight. It's a unique approach that highlights Reagan's pivotal role in ending the Cold War and defeating the "Evil Empire."
Hollywood reviewers, predictably, have been merciless in their attacks. The Daily Beast called it "the worst movie of the year." Other critics called it “a children’s story for the adult diaper set”, “christofascist” and “historical gooey.” On Rotten Tomatoes, the movie has an abysmal 19% approval rating from critics.
But audiences? They love it, giving the film a stunning 98% approval on Rotten Tomato’s audience score, highlighting the chasm between the critics and regular people. As John Fund explains in the National Review, out of 15,000 reviewed movies on the site, “only four films since 1998 have seen a divide of 50 percent or more: Boondock Saints (65 percent), Super Troopers, (54 percent), Venom, (50 percent) and Uncharted, (50 percent). The gap with Reagan is a stunning 78 percent.”
This elite disdain for Reagan is nothing new. Before his election, they painted him as a crazy cowboy who would start World War III. They mocked his faith, his optimism, and his unshakable belief in America's goodness. But through steadfast leadership, Reagan proved them all wrong. He defeated a truly immoral regime, strengthened America, and made the world safer.
Reagan's adopted son, Michael, puts it well: "As the movie shows, it was my father's rhetoric, his America-wins foreign policy, his Christian moral principles and his stubborn negotiating skills that led the way to the West's victory over the Evil Empire."
Hollywood's hostility towards Reagan is deeply ironic. He was a six-time president of the Screen Actors Guild who won major gains for actors. But most never forgave him for becoming a conservative. Previous efforts featuring Reagan sought to tarnish his legacy, from a factually shakey CBS miniseries to a proposed "comedy" about his Alzheimer's while president, a film abandoned after public outrage.
When news broke that a "Reagan film" was in the works, the assumption was that it would be another hit piece. The production’s commitment to a fair portrayal was met with skepticism, if not outright hostility.
The end result is a movie that treats Reagan with respect, showcasing his humor, his conviction, and his leadership. It’s unabashedly positive about its subject, though it does address failures like the Iran-Contra scandal. For those who believe Reagan was the man America needed at a crucial time, "Reagan" is the tribute they've been waiting for.
If you’re not a Reagan fan, this film won't change your mind. But for the millions of Americans who admire him, who remember how he restored America's spirit and stared down the Soviet Union, "Reagan" is a long-overdue celebration.
In the end, "Reagan" is more than just a film. It's a reminder of the enduring gap between America's coastal elites and its heartland, between those who shape our culture and those who live in it. And it's a testament to the lasting impact of a president who, love him or not, undeniably changed the course of human history.
– Ken
I was not a Ronald Reagan fan while he was Governor of California nor the President. It was not until after the fall of the Berlin Wall that I appreciated how much he did for the US and the world. He was part of the three person team, of Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul who decimated Communism. I have stood at the gates of the Gdansk Ship Yards and cried at the monument there to the courage of the workers (and the citizens of Gdansk) to bring down Communism.
So the movie, for me, was a trip down memory lane. In the 1970s, I had bounced around between the Intermountain West and the Bay Area. The 1980s found me in Salt Lake City and then Southern California. I was fortunate to go to Budapest in May, 1990 and see the hope of the people who had lived under the yoke of Communism. I had numerous other trips to Poland and the Eastern Part of Germany to witness the rebirth of these countries as they joined the capitalist world. It was during the 1990s and the early 2000s that I fully understood what Ronald Reagan had accomplished. Sadly, not while he was in office.
I had read a review of the movie in the Wall Street Journal prior to seeing it. I was a little surprised that the WSJ panned the film. Then I went to see the movie and realized that movie critics have their own opinions. And I might not agree with them. I loved the movie. And part of that might have been the nostalgia. Maybe, and maybe not. Anyway, I would recommend the film, especially to understand what made Ronald Reagan who he was (his relationship with his mother) and the support that his wife Nancy gave him. Things I did not understand or know.
Thanks Ken, as soon as I read this yesterday morning I went out and caught a matinee showing. The first vote I ever cast was for Ronald Reagan, 1976 Indiana Presidential Primary. This movie was wonderful. Critics probably slam it for a number of reasons: its lack of the depravity and cynicism and snarky pessimism which they adore; and hatred for the protagonist. And film critics of a certain age are uncomfortably reminded that they were on the 'wrong side of history' - back then, as now.