A film about Ronald Reagan has been pulled by US network CBS, and many are blaming Republican pressure, writes Ian Kilroy
In Ireland, we know all about the writing and re-writing of history. How Michael Collins can be out of official favour, only to be returned gradually to the pantheon of our great Irish dead. We also know how popular culture plays a vital role in this writing and re-writing of history. How, for example, Neil Jordan's Michael Collins played a pivotal part in the re-casting of Collins as the hero for our time.
In today's America similar processes are at work. The rising right and neo-conservative commentators are busy re-writing history and constructing heroes for their cause. If the Democrats have JFK and the African-Americans have Martin Luther King, then why shouldn't we have our own champion, they say.
For this role there was one clear candidate, a man ever popular with the American public, a man near death and with no big history of womanising. A man who not only didn't inhale but who didn't even dodge the draft. It was obvious who to single out for beatification - Ronald Reagan.
In recent years, the Reagan beatification has been going well. The airport in Washington DC has been named after him. Buildings have been named after him. He is adulated regularly on Fox and MSNBC. All was going smoothly until a few liberals got together to make a TV mini-series on Ronald and Nancy Reagan, a TV docu-drama that raised the wrath of Republicans and contributed further to the swing to the right in the US media.
The rile of Republicans was first raised when excerpts of the script for The Reagans appeared in the New York Times in October. Reagan, it appeared, was portrayed as unsympathetic to people with AIDS, saying "they that live in sin shall die in sin". Suggestions that his Alzheimer's disease affected his latter days as President and that Nancy really wore the trousers also irked Republicans. It wasn't long before the right had a concerted campaign in full swing against the mini-series.
First the Republican National Committee (RNC) dashed off a letter to CBS, the station which commissioned the series and planned to air it this month in a primetime slot. The NRC demanded the series be reviewed by friends of the Reagans, and that if the four-hour series went to broadcast a statement reminding the audience that the piece was fictional should be flashed on the screen every 10 minutes.
In addition, conservative groups wrote to approximately 100 advertisers requesting that they reconsider buying advertising during the slot set for The Reagans (threatening a boycott if they didn't), while, at the same time, about 80,000 e-mails flooded into CBS, demanding the series be pulled.
CBS chairman Leslie Moonves began to order re-edits. Then the network decided to reviewe all aspects of the series, finally pukking thge series.
In a statement issued on November 4th, the network said its decision to cancel The Reagans was "based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script". The statement said that the series has "impressive production values and acting performances" and that "the producers have sources to verify each scene".
However, CBS said the series "does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans", and that, therefore, it had decided to pull it from primetime and sell it to Showtime, a pay-per-view channel, where it would receive a fraction of the viewers.
Immediately, liberal pundits pointed to the fact CBS is owned by Viacom. Viacom also owns Showtime and needs a favourable ruling from the Republican administration on whether a company can own more than one media outlet in the same city. Critics said that pulling The Reagans appeared like censorship. . This was a clear example of a political elite using its influence to foist its agenda on the rest of the country, they said.
Senate minority leader, Democrat Tom Daschle, told journalists the decision "smells of intimidation". Actor James Brolin's manager told the Washington Post that his client (who plays Reagan) was disappointed, and that "there's an air of censorship in this country". But the RNC still wasn't satisfied. It wanted the series pulled altogether, even from Showtime. To date that has not happened and the series is scheduled for broadcast next year.
The producers of The Reagans - Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, who also produced the hit musical, Chicago - in a statement highlighting that CBS had approved the original script. The fact that both men are known in the business for their liberal views further infuriated conservatives, as did the fact that lead-man Brolin is married to well-known Democrat-supporter Barbara Streisand. Objections to the series also cited by Republicans were that Reagan is a dying man, and that it is insensitive to portray him in a poor light at this time. Also criticised were the scenes in the series that were imagined. No one could have known what went on between Ronald and Nancy in their private moments, critics of the series said.
But the fact that Clinton is still in rude health did not stop the producers of Primary Colours, while anyone who has seen any TV or cinematic portrayal of any historical personality will know screenwriters have always to fill in the gaps themselves. As for accusations of bias, well, when are such films objective? These kinds of projects always offer a particular reading of history.
The NBC TV movie, Saving Jessica Lynch, was screened as planned last weekend, despite allegations that the capture and rescue of Lynch during the Iraqi war was staged by the US military. Now it is deemed appropriate to secure her hero status in a TV drama, even while the real life facts themselves are under question.
What will be interesting will be to watch the changing status and representations of Ronald Reagan in the years to come. When he dies will he be elevated to sainthood? Will he be the Cold War hero that stood up to "the evil empire", the man that with Thatcher unleashed the great global market to the benefit of all? It is likely that his illegal interference in Nicaragua and that the downsides to his Chicago School economics will be forgotten.