What�s most striking in this story is not CBS giving in to political pressure or charges of liberal bias in Hollywood, what this film instead showcases is how political ideology shades how we view things. Those on the Right who cried foul over the film are not likely to change their views after seeing the film and those on the Left scratch their heads and wonder �what�s the big deal� as the film apparently does portray the Reagans with the typical stereotypes that the Left has always tried to paint the Reagans with. 

Given those predisposed biases in favor and against the Reagans, it�s not surprising that supporters can point out flaws in the film and critics only find that the film reinforces what they already believed about �The Gipper�. 

Below are some examples of that point from various articles published about the film. 

Those who found a bias

DAVID BAUDER of the Chicago Sun Times writes:

��Reagans,' which premieres today on Showtime, depicts the former president as amiable but often confused, controlled to a large extent by his wife, Nancy, and presiding over a dysfunctional family.�

�The Reagans' faults are familiar to those who followed his presidency. What's striking is how they dominate this film compared with Reagan's successes: The Iran-Contra affair is given considerably more time than the Cold War defeat of the Soviet Union, and the economic boom of the 1980s is barely touched upon.�

ALESSANDRA STANLEY of the New York Times:

�It is not a thoughtful look at a critical moment in American history. It is a domestic drama about a loving couple beset by Hollywood agents, Republican backers, scheming advisers and, most of all, their angry, needy children.�

�Anyone eagerly anticipating or dreading a hatchet job on the 40th president is bound to feel confounded. James Brolin's portrayal of Ronald Reagan is uncannily convincing and respectful. Judy Davis as Mrs. Reagan verges on campy caricature, but even at her most imperious, the first lady never stops being a protective, loving wife.�

Tom Shales of the Washington Post says the film is not quite a hatchet job. : 

�There are those who will probably find the depictions of the former president and first lady in The Reagans� just that simplistic and cartoonish.�

�The film, while not a hatchet job or unrelentingly vicious attack, definitely makes the Reagans rather freakish creatures, Nancy with her fanatical reliance on an astrologer and her tendency to sob and rant in the bathtub, Ronald haunted by nightmares of being a lifeguard, as he was in his youth, and being unable to "save," among others, figures in his administration who go down in disgrace. The Reagan children are all depicted as, in varying ways, being estranged from their parents, with Patti striking by far the most rebellious poses -- among them pot-smoking and an abortion.

�It includes moments in which Ronald Reagan is depicted as endearing and assertive and in which the fabled romance between the two is warmly portrayed. But both the Reagans seem persistently shallow; he is glib and affable, she is feverishly manipulative and thin-skinned.� 

��Ronald Reagan almost sheepishly acceding to the wishes of his beloved wife, whom he calls �Mommy� and �Nancy-Pants.��

��At least the film acknowledges, if mostly in a postscript, that he did end the Cold War and bring down the Berlin Wall, among other historic accomplishments.�

Mark Sage, Press Association News writes Reagan�s �wife Nancy is portrayed as a control freak who plans her husband�s schedule based on astrological advice.� And describes one scene of the film where Reagan �breaks down when the Iran-Contra scandal unfolds and tells his wife that he will be seen as the �anti-Christ�.

Vince Horichi of the Salt Lake Tribune gave this scathing review of the film:

Say what you will about Ronald Reagan -- I, for one, didn't vote for the man both times -- but his life deserves a more fair and honest approach than what this trashy biography dishes up in 170 minutes. The movie, which will be repeated this week on several Showtime networks, is a strong candidate for worst television movie of the year. 

From the �What�s the big deal?� camp 

David Bianculli New York Daily News: 

�It's not as uneven, incendiary or damning as its political critics have charged. As a preview copy provided by Showtime at the last minute yesterday revealed, though, it's not that great, either.�

�The script� breezes through Reagan's life, stopping only for career highlights and lowlights and occasional intimate sequences.�

ADAM BUCKMAN of the New York Post sees nothing wrong with the film: 

��the people who made such a big stink about it look like a bunch of loony, paranoid alarmists.�

�the protesters turned a forgettable TV movie into the most infamous miniseries of all time.�

�Which is not to praise �The Reagans,� but to put it into perspective. �The Reagans� is no great work of cinema and is thus not likely to endure at all in the public's imagination. 

�It is also not historically accurate, which is a problem for TV movies of this kind, but an area I'll leave to historians to sort out. 

�The Reagans� is, however, a typical made-for-TV movie - melodramatic, clichéd, a bit disjointed, and a little cheesy in some of its settings and re-creations.�

****

As this article shows, you can present things selectively to illustrate your point, which is what often happens with �historical� films and especially ones "made-for-tv". 

Critics of the film point out that the producers and writers of the film did not consult any of the Reagan inner-circle. The producer�s state that they did consult two sources that were close to the Reagan�s but have not named them. Judging by the reviews of the film and descriptions, especially the astrology and portrayal of Nancy Reagan as domineering, it would be a safe guess that the writers relied in part on the scathing book �For the Record�, which was written by Reagan�s Chief of Staff Don Regan after he was fired in February of 1987 after the Tower Board, investigating the Iran Contra scandal, said Regan was responsible "for the chaos that descended upon the White House".  Regan said that he was used as a �scapegoat� and he painted a not too pleasent picture of the First Lady in his book. 

All the political spin of journalists and activists aside, the people will now pass their own judgment on the controversial film after they watch it and depending on where their political sympathies may be rooted, they will more than likely mirror the biases we have seen from the press. 

The only real winner in this whole affair is Viacom which received an avalanche of free publicity for the film. Historically accurate? That depends on what the meaning of accurate is and which pair of political glasses you view the film through. One thing both sides seem to agree on it's not that great of a movie. 
 
 

.